United States Office of Water EPA 823-B-00-007 Environmental Protection (4305) November 2000 Agency 

# Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories

Volume 1 Fish Sampling and Analysis Third Edition

# Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories

Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis Third Edition

Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DCUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (4305) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

## Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contami n

Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

iii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

**Section Page** 
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Acronyms

................................................ xiii Executive Summary

....................................... ES-1

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1 Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1.1 Establishment of the Fish Contaminant Workgroup . . . 1-3 1.1.2 Development of a National Fish Advisory Database . . . 1-3 1.2 Purpose

......................................... 1-10 1.3 Objectives

....................................... 1-13 1.4 Relationship of Manual to Other Guidance Documents

..... 1-15 1.5 Contents of Volume 1

.............................. 1-15 1.6 New Information And Revisions to Volume 1

............. 1-18
2 Monitoring Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Screening Studies (Tier 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2.2 Intensive Studies (Tier 2)

............................ 2-13

3 Target Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Purpose of Using Target Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Criteria for Selecting Target Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.3 Freshwater Target Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.3.1 Target Finfish Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3.3.2 Target Turtle Species

......................... 3-10 3.4 Estuarine/marine Target Species

...................... 3-15 3.4.1 Target Shellfish Species

....................... 3-23 3.4.2 Target Finfish Species

........................ 3-28
4 Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Recommended Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 Selection and Prioritization of Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4.3 Target Analyte Profiles

............................. 4-12 4.3.1 Metals

.................................... 4-12 4.3.2 Organochlorine Pesticides

..................... 4-24 4.3.3 Organophosphate Pesticides

................... 4-38**Section Page**  **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

iv 4.3.4 Chlorophenoxy Herbicides

..................... 4-43 4.3.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

............... 4-44 4.3.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total)

................ 4-47 4.3.7 Dioxins and Dibenzofurans

..................... 4-54 4.4 Target Analytes Under Evaluation

..................... 4-58 4.4.1 Lead

...................................... 4-58
5 Screening Values for Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 General Equations for Calculating Screening Values . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1.1 Noncarcinogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.1.2 Carcinogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.1.3 Recommended Values for Variables in Screening Value Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5.2 Screening Values for Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 5.3 Comparison of Target Analyte Concentrations with Screening Values

................................. 5-16 5.3.1 Metals

.................................... 5-16 5.3.2 Organics

................................... 5-18

6 Field Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1.1 Screening Studies (Tier 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 6.1.2 Intensive Studies (Tier 2)

...................... 6-22 6.2 Sample Collection

................................. 6-38 6.2.1 Sampling Equipment and Use

.................. 6-38 6.2.2 Preservation of Sample Integrity

................ 6-45 6.2.3 Field Recordkeeping

......................... 6-46 6.3 Sample Handling

.................................. 6-55 6.3.1 Sample Selection

............................ 6-55 6.3.2 Sample Packaging

........................... 6-61 6.3.3 Sample Preservation

......................... 6-64 6.3.4 Sample Shipping

............................ 6-65
7 Laboratory Procedures I—Sample Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.1 Sample Receipt And Chain-of-custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.2 Sample Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 7.2.1 General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 7.2.2 Processing Fish Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 7.2.3 Processing Turtle Samples

..................... 7-16 7.2.4 Processing Shellfish Samples

.................. 7-24 7.3 Sample Distribution

................................ 7-29 7.3.1 Preparing Sample Aliquots

..................... 7-29 7.3.2 Sample Transfer

............................. 7-32**Section Page**  **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

v 8 Laboratory Procedures II

— Sample Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 8.1 Recommended Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 8.1.1 Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 8.1.2 Lipid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 8.2 Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3 8.2.1 Lipid Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3 8.2.2 Target Analyte Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4 8.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Considerations

..... 8-12 8.3.1 QA Plans

.................................. 8-14 8.3.2 Method Documentation

....................... 8-14 8.3.3 Minimum QA and QC Requirements for Sample Analyses

................................... 8-14 8.4 Documentation and Reporting of Data

.................. 8-46 8.4.1 Analytical Data Reports

....................... 8-46 8.4.2 Summary Reports

........................... 8-47
9 Data Analysis and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 9.1 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 9.1.1 Screening Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 9.1.2 Intensive Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2 9.2 Data Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3 9.2.1 State Data Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3 9.2.2 Reports to the National Fish Tissue Residue Data Repository (NFTRDR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

10 Literature Cited

....................................... 10-1

**Appendix**
A 1993 Fish Contaminant Workgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
B Screening Values for Defining Green Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
C Use of Individual Samples in Fish Contaminant Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
D Fish and Shellfish Species for which State Consumption Advisories Have Been Issued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
E Target Analytes Analyzed in National or Regional Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
F Pesticides and Herbicides Recommended as Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1**Section Page**  **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

vi G Target Analyte Dose-Response Variables and Associated Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
H A Recommended Method for Inorganic Arsenic Analysis . . . . . . . . . H-1
I Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
J Recommended Procedures for Preparing Whole Fish Composite Homogenate Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
K General Procedures for Removing Edible Tissues from Freshwater Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1
L General Procedures for Removing Edible Tissues from Shellfish . . L-1

M Sources of Reference Materials and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-1
N Statistical Methods for Comparing Samples: Spatial and Temporal Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-1**FIGURES**

vii 

## FIGURES

**Number Page** 

1-1 Total number of fish advisories in effect in each state in 1998 (change from 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1-2 Trends in number of advisories issued for various pollutants . . . . . 1-7 1-3 Series summary: Guidance for assessing chemical contamination data for use in fish advisories

................ 1-16
2-1 Recommended strategy for State fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
3-1 Geographic range of the common snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina)

.......................................... 3-12 3-2 Geographic distributions of three bivalve species used extensively in national contaminant monitoring programs

...... 3-27
4-1 States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for mercury

........ 4-21 4-2 States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for chlordane

....... 4-27 4-3 States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for PCBs

.......... 4-51 4-4 States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for dioxin/furans

.... 4-57
5-1 Recommended Values for Mean Body Weights (BWs) and Fish Consumption Rates (CRs) for Selected Subpopulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 5-2 Fish Consumption Rates for Various Fisher Populations

....... 5-10 5-3 Dose-Response Variables and Recommended Screening Values (SVs) for Target Analytes - Recreational Fishers

....... 5-11 5-4 Dose-Response Variables and Recommended Screening Values (SVs) for Target Analytes - Subsistence Fishers

....... 5-13 5-5 Example Screening Values (SVs) for Various Target Populations and Risk Levels (RLs)

........................ 5-17 5-6 Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Various PAHs

.............. 5-205-7 Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Tetra-through OctaChlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans and Dioxin-Like PCBs

..................................... 5-22**Number Page**  **FIGURES**

viii 6-1 Example of a sample request form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 6-2 U.S. fish and wildlife service regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 6-3 Example of a field record for fish contaminant monitoring program

— screening study

.............................. 6-47 6-4 Example of a field record for shellfish contaminant monitoring program

— screening study

.............................. 6-48 6-5 Example of a field record for fish contaminant monitoring program

— intensive study

.............................. 6-49 6-6 Example of a field record for shellfish contaminant monitoring program

— intensive study

.............................. 6-51 6-7 Example of a sample identification label

.................... 6-52 6-8 Example of a chain-of-custody tag or label

................. 6-53 6-9 Example of a chain-of-custody record form

................. 6-54 6-10 Recommended measurements of body length and size for fish, shellfish, and turtles

................................... 6-58
7-1 Preparation of fish fillet composite homogenate samples . . . . . . . . 7-8 7-2 Sample processing record for fish contaminant monitoring program

— fish fillet composites.

.......................... 7-10 7-3 Illustration of basic fish filleting procedure.

.................. 7-13 7-4 Preparation of individual turtle homogenate samples

.......... 7-17 7-5 Sample processing record for a contaminant monitoring program

— individual turtle samples

....................... 7-19 7-6 Illustration of basic turtle resection procedure

............... 7-21 7-7 Preparation of shellfish edible tissue composite homogenate samples

............................................ 7-25 7-8 Sample processing record for shellfish contaminant monitoring program

— edible tissue composites.

...................... 7-27 7-9 Example of a fish and shellfish monitoring program sample aliquot record.

....................................... 7-31 7-10 Example of a fish and shellfish monitoring program sample transfer record

....................................... 7-33
8-1 Recommended contents of analytical standard operating procedures (SOPs).

................................... 8-15
9-1 Recommended data reporting requirements for screening and intensive studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4 9-2 Key information fields for the National Fish Tissue Residue Data Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6**TABLES**

ix 

## TABLES

**Number Page** 
1-1 U.S. Advisories Issued from 1993 to 1998 by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 1-2 Summary of Statewide Advisories in Effect in 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 1-3 Comparison of FDA Action Levels and Tolerances with EPA Screening Values

..................................... 1-12 2-1 Recommended Strategy for State Fish and Shellfish Contaminant Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
3-1 Recommended Target Species for Inland Fresh Waters . . . . . . . . 3-4 3-2 Recommended Target Species for Great Lakes Waters . . . . . . . . 3-4 3-3 Comparison of Freshwater Finfish Species Used in Several National Fish Contaminant Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 3-4 Freshwater Turtles Recommended for Use as Target Species . . . 3-7 3-5 Average Fish Tissue Concentrations (ppb) of Xenobiotics for Major Finfish Species Sampled in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3-6 Average Fish Tissue Concentrations (ppt) of Dioxins and Furans for Major Finfish Species Sampled in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 3-7 Principal Freshwater Fish Species Cited in State Fish Consumption Advisories

................................ 3-11 3-8 Principal Freshwater Turtle Species Cited in State Consumption Advisories

................................ 3-12 3-9 Studies Using Freshwater Turtles as Biomonitors of Environmental Contamination

........................... 3-14 3-10 Recommended Target Species for Northeast Atlantic Estuaries and Marine Waters (Maine through Connecticut)

..... 3-16 3-11 Recommended Target Species for Mid-Atlantic Estuaries and Marine Waters (New York through Virginia)

............. 3-17 3-12 Recommended Target Species for Southeast Atlantic Estuaries and Marine Waters (North Carolina through Florida) . . 3-18 3-13 Recommended Target Species for Gulf of Mexico Estuaries and Marine Waters (West Coast of Florida through Texas)

..... 3-19 3-14 Recommended Target Species for Pacific Northwest Estuaries and Marine Waters (Alaska through Oregon)

........ 3-20 3-15 Recommended Target Species for Northern California Estuaries and Marine Waters (Klamath River through Morro Bay)

.......................................... 3-21**Number Page**  **TABLES**

x 3-16 Recommended Target Species for Southern California Estuaries and Marine Waters (Santa Monica Bay to Tijuana Estuary)

...................................... 3-22 3-17 Sources of Information on Commercial and Sportfishing Species in Various Coastal Areas of the United States

........ 3-24 3-18 Estuarine/Marine Species Used in Several National Fish and Shellfish Contaminant Monitoring Programs

............. 3-25 3-19 Principal Estuarine/Marine Fish and Shellfish Species Cited in State Consumption Advisories

......................... 3-29
4-1 Recommended Target Analytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 4-2 Contaminants Resulting in Fish and Shellfish Advisories . . . . . . . . 4-4 4-3 Selection and Prioritization of Target Analytes by Watershed Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 4-4 Total Mercury and Methylmercury Concentrations in Estuarine Fish from South Florida

................................ 4-18 4-5 Chlordane Constituent Concentrations a Detected in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

................ 4-26 4-6 Summary of PCBs Detected in Fish Tissue a as Part of the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

................ 4-50 4-7 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Congeners Recommended for Quantitation as Potential Target Analytes

.................. 4-53 4-8 Summary of Dioxins/Furans Detected in Fish Tissue as Part of the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish

....... 4-56 4-9 Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans Recommended for Analysis as Target Analytes

............................. 4-59
5-1 Recommended Values for Mean Body Weights (BWs) and Fish Consumption Rates (CRs) for Selected Subpopulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 5-2 Fish Consumption Rates for Various Fisher Populations

....... 5-10 5-3 Dose-Response Variables and Recommended Screening Values (SVs) for Target Analytes - Recreational Fishers

....... 5-11 5-4 Dose-Response Variables and Recommended Screening Values (SVs) for Target Analytes - Subsistence Fishers

....... 5-13 5-5 Example Screening Values (SVs) for Various Target Populations and Risk Levels (RLs)

........................ 5-17 5-6 Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Various PAHs 5-20 5-7 Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Tetra-through Octa-Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans and Dioxin-Like PCBs

................................. 5-22**Number Page**  **TABLES**

xi 6-1 Values of for Various Combinations of n and m . . 6-30 2 n m (n 1).

2 2 1/2

- é ë ê ù û ú 6-2 Estimates of Statistical Power of Hypothesis of Interest Under Specified Assumptions

................................. 6-32 6-3 Observed Ratios (  /SV) of Selected Target Analytes

.......... 6-33 6-4 Summary of Fish Sampling Equipment

.................... 6-39 6-5 Summary of Shellfish Sampling Equipment

................. 6-40 6-6 Checklist of Field Sampling Equipment and Supplies for Fish and Shellfish Contaminant Monitoring Programs

......... 6-42 6-7 Safety Considerations for Field Sampling Using a Boat

........ 6-43 6-8 Recommendations for Preservation of Fish, Shellfish, and Turtles Samples from Time of Collection to Delivery at the Processing Laboratory

.......................................... 6-63
7-1 Recommendations for Container Materials, Preservation, and Holding Times for Fish, Shellfish, and Turtle Tissues from Receipt at Sample Processing Laboratory to Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 7-2 Weights (g) of Individual Homogenates Required for Screening Study Composite Homogenate Sample

............ 7-16 7-3 Recommended Sample Aliquot Weights and Containers for Various Analyses

..................................... 7-30
8-1 Contract Laboratories Conducting Dioxin/Furan Analyses in Fish and Shellfish Tissues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 8-2 Current References for Analytical Methods for Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish Tissues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5 8-3 Recommended Analytical Techniques for Target Analytes . . . . . . 8-8 8-4 Range of Detection and Quantitation Limits of Current Analytical Methods for Recommended Target Analytes

........ 8-10 8-5 Approximate Range of Costs per Sample for Analysis of Recommended Target Analytes

.......................... 8-13 8-6 Recommended Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples

............................................ 8-17 8-7 Minimum Recommended QA and QC Samples for Routine Analysis of Target Analytes

............................. 8-23 8-8 Fish and Shellfish Tissue Reference Materials

............... 8-26**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**

xii 

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program. The EPA Project Manager for this document was Jeffrey Bigler who provided overall project coordination as well as technical direction. EPA was supported in the development of this document by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) (EPA Contract Number 68-C7-0056). Pat Cunningham of RTI was the contractor ’ s Project Manager. Pr eparation of the First Edition of this guidance in 1993 was facilitated by the substantial efforts of the numerous Workgroup members and reviewers listed in Appendix A.**ACRONYMS**

xiii 

## ACRONYMS

AFS American Fisheries Society ANOVA Analysis of Variance ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BCF bioconcentration factor
BW body weight CDD chlorodibenzo- p -dioxin CDF chlorodibenzofuran CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CLP Contract Laboratory Program COC chain-of-custody CR consumption rate CRM certified reference material CRADAs Cooperative Research and Development Agreements CSF cancer slope factor CSFII Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Indivdiuals CSOs combined sewer overflows CV coefficient of variation CVAAS cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry DFTPP decafluorotriphenylphosphine DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program EMAP-NC Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

— Near Coastal
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EMMI Environmental Monitoring Methods Index System
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration**ACRONYMS**

xiv FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 -BHC benzene hexachloride

 -HCH hexachlorocyclohexane GC/ECD gas chromatography/electron capture detection GC/FID gas chromatography/flame ionization detection GC/FPD gas chromatography/flame photometric detection GC/NPD gas chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus detection GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
GFAA graphic furnace atomic absorption spectrometry GLIFWC Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
GPS Global Positioning System
HAA hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables HPLC/MS high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry HRGC/LRMS high-resolution gas chromography/low-resolution mass spectrometry HRGC/HRMS high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry ICP inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry
IDL instrument detection limit IRIS Integrated Risk Information System IUPAC Information Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
LAN local area network
LLD lower limits of detection LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation
MDL method detection limit MQL method quantitation limit NAS National Academy of Sciences
NEP National Estuary Program NERRS National Estuarine Research Research System**ACRONYMS**

xv NCBP National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program NCR no-carbon-required
ND not detected
NEP National Estuary Program NFTDR National Fish Tissue Data Repository NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NLFWA National Listing of Residue Fish and Wildlife Advisors NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAEL no observed adverse effects level NRCC National Research Council of Canada
NS&T National States and Trends Program NSCRF National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish
NTIS National Technical Information Service OAPCA Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OCDD octachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin OCDF octachlorodibenzofuran ODES Ocean Discharge Evaluation System
ODW Office of Drinking Water OHEA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
PAB Population Adjusted Dose
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PBBs polybrominated biphenyls PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PCDDs polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins PCDFs polychlorinated dibenzofurans
PEC potency equivalency concentration
PNAs polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons PQL practical quantitation limit
PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene**ACRONYMS**

xvi QA quality assurance QC quality control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDL reliable detection limit
RFs response factors
RfD reference dose
RL risk level
RPs relative potencies
RPD relative percent difference
RRFs relative response factors RSD relative standard deviation SOPs standard operating procedures SRMs standard reference materials SVs screening values 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,4,5-T 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-TCP 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
TEFs toxicity equivalency factor TEQs toxicity equivalency concentrations
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
UF uncertainty factor
UM modifying factor USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WHO World Health Organization**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

ES-1 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A 1988 survey, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conducted by the American Fisheries Society, identified the need for standardizing the approaches to evaluating risks and developing fish consumption advisories that are comparable across different jurisdictions. Four major components were identified as critical to the development of a consistent risk-based approach: standardized practices for sampling and analyzing fish, standardized risk assessment methods, standardized procedures for making risk management decisions, and standardized approaches for communicating risk to the general public.
To address concerns raised by the survey respondents, EPA began developing a series of four documents designed to provide guidance to state, local, regional, and tribal environmental health officials responsible for designing contaminant monitoring programs and issuing fish and shellfish consumption advisories. It is essential that all four documents be used together, since no single volume addresses all of the topics involved in the development of fish consumption advisories. The documents are meant to provide gui dance only and do not constitute a regulatory requirement. This document series includes:
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories
Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits Volume 3: Overview of Risk Management Volume 4: Risk Communication

. Volume 1 was first released in September 1993 and was followed by a second edition in September 1995. This current revision to the Volume 1 guidance provides the latest information on sampling and analysis procedures based on new information provided by EPA. The major objective of Volume 1 is to provide information on sampling strategies for a contaminant monitoring program. In addition, information is provided on selection of target species; selection of chemicals as target analytes; development of human health screening values; sample collection procedures including sample processing, sample preservation, and shipping; sample analysis; and data reporting and analysis.
Volume 2 was first released in June 1994 and was followed by a second edition in July 1997. A third edition will be released in November 2000. This volume provides guidance on the development of appropriate meal sizes and frequency of meal consumption (e.g., one meal per week) for the target analytes that**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

ES-2 bioaccumulate in fish tissues. In addition to the presentation of consumption limits, Volume 2 contains a discussion of risk assessment methods used to derive the consumption limits as well as a discussion of methods to modify these limits to reflect local conditions. Volume 2 also contains toxicological profiles for each of the 25 target analytes.
Volume 3 was published in June 1996 and provides an overview of a risk management framework. This volume provides information on selecting and implementing various options for reducing health risks associated with the consumption of chemically contaminated fish and shellfish. Using a human health risk-based approach, states can determine the level of the advisory and the most appropriate type of advisory to issue. Methods to evaluate population risks for specific groups, waterbodies, and geographic areas are also presented.
Volume 4 was published in March 1995 and provides guidance on risk communication as a process for sharing information with the public on the health risks of consuming chemically contaminated fish and shellfish. This volume provides guidance on problem analysis and program objectives, audience i dentification and needs assessments, communication strategy design, implementation and evaluation, and responding to public inquiries.
EPA welcomes your suggestions and comments. A major goal of this guidance document series is to provide a clear and usable summary of critical information necessary to make informed decisions concerning the development of fish consumption advisories. We encourage comments and hope this document will be a useful adjunct to the resources used by the states, local governments, and tribal organizations in making decisions concerning the development of fish advisories within their various jurisdictions.1. INTRODUCTION

1-1 

## SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Contamination of aquatic resources, including freshwater, estuarine, and marine fish and shellfish, has been documented in the scientific literature for many regions of the United States (NAS, 1991). Environmental concentrations of some pollutants have decreased over the past 25 years as a result of better water quality management practices. However, environmental concentrations of other heavy metals, pesticides, and toxic organic compounds have increased due to intensifying urbanization, industrial development, and use of new agricultural chemicals. Our Nation’s waterbodies are among the ultimate repositories of pollutants released from these activities. Pollutants come from permitted point source discharges (e.g., industrial and municipal facilities), accidental spill events, and nonpoint sources (e.g., agricultural practices, resource extraction, urban runoff, in-place sediment contamination, groundwater recharge, vehicular exhaust, and atmospheric deposition from various combustion and incineration processes).
Once these toxic contaminants reach surface waters, they may concentrate through aquatic food chains and bioaccumulate in fish and shellfish tissues. Aquatic organisms may bioaccumulate environmental contaminants to more than 1,000,000 times the concentrations detected in the water column (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Thus, fish and shellfish tissue monitoring serves as an important indicator of contaminated sediments and water quality problems, and many states routinely conduct chemical contaminant analyses of fish and shellfish tissues as part of their comprehensive water quality monitoring programs (Cunningham and Whitaker, 1989; Cunningham, 1998; Cunnin gham and Su llivan,1999). Tissuecontaminant monitoring also enables state agencies to detect levels of contamination in fish and shellfish tissue that may be harmful to human consumers. If states conclude that consumption of chemically contaminated fish and shellfish poses an unacceptable human health risk, they may issue local fish consumption advisories or bans for specific waterbodies and specific fish and shellfish species for specific populations.
In 1989, the American Fisheries Society (AFS), at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), conducted a survey of state fish and shellfish consumption advisory practices. Questionnaires were sent to health departments, fisheries agencies, and water quality/environmental management departments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Officials in all 50 states and the District responded.1. INTRODUCTION

1-2 Respondents were asked to provide information on several issues including

• Agency responsibilities

• Sampling strategies

• Sample collection procedures

• Chemical residue analysis procedures

• Risk assessment methodologies • Data interpretation and advisory development

• State concerns

• Recommendations for federal assistance.

Cunningham et al. (1990) summarized the survey res ponses and reported that monitoring and risk assessment procedures used by states in their fish and shellfish advisory programs varied widely. States responded to the question concerning assistance from the federal government by requesting that federal agencies

• Provide a consistent approach for state agencies to use in assessing health risks from consumption of chemically contaminated fish and shellfish

• Develop guidance on sample collection procedures

• Develop and/or endorse uniform, cost-effective analytical methods for quantitation of contaminants

• Establish a quality assurance (QA) program that includes use of certified reference materials for chemical analyses.
In March 1991, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report entitled Seafood Safety (NAS, 1991) that reviewed the nature and extent of public health risks associated with seafood consumption and examined the scope and adequacy of current seafood safety programs. After reviewing over 150 reports and publications on seafood contamination, the NAS Institute of Medicine concluded that high concentrations of chemical contaminants exist in various fish species in a number of locations in the country. The report noted that the fish monitoring data available in national and regional studies had two major shortcomings that affected their usefulness in assessing human health risks:

• In some of the more extensive studies, analyses were performed on nonedible portions of finfish (e.g., liver tissue) or on whole fish, which precludes accurate determination of human exposures.

• Studies did not use consistent methods of data reporting (e.g., both geometric and arithmetic means were reported in different studies) or failed to report crucial information on sample size, percent lipid, mean values of contaminant concentrations, or fish size, thus precluding direct comparison of the data from different studies and complicating further statistical analysis and risk assessment.1. INTRODUCTION

1-3 1.1.1 Establishment of the Fish Contaminant Workgroup
As a result of NAS concerns and state concerns expressed in the AFS survey, EPA ’ s Office of Water established a Fish Contaminant Workgr oup. It was composed of representatives from EPA and the following state and federal agencies:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

• Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

• United States Geological Survey (USGS)
and representatives from 26 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The objective of the EPA Fish Contaminant Workgroup was to formulate guidance for states on how to sample and analyze chemical contaminants in fish and shellfish where the primary end uses of the data included development of fish consumption advisories. The Workgroup compiled documents describing protocols currently used by various federal agencies, EPA Regional offices, and states that have extensive experience in fish contaminant monitoring. Using these documents, they selected methods considered most cost-effective and scientifically sound for sampling and analyzing fish and shellfish tissues. These methods were recommended as standard procedures for use by the states and are described in this guidance document.
1.1.2 Development of a National Fish Advisory Database
In addition to initiating work on the national guidance document series in 1993, EPA also initiated work on the development of a national database

—The National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database

— for tracking fish and wildlife advisories issued by the states. The 1998 update of the NLFWA database includes all available information describing state, territorial, tribal, and federal fish consumption advisories issued in the United States (U.S. EPA 1999a, 1999c). The database contains fish consumption advisory information provided to EPA by the states and other jurisdictions from 1993 through December 1998. It also includes information from 1996 through 1997 for 12 Canadian provinces and territories. No updates to information on Canadian advisories were made in 1998. Since the release of the first fish advisory results in 1994, advisory results and trends have been accessible to states, territories, tribal organizations, and the general public by querying the NLFWA database or through summary information reported each year in the EPA Fact Sheet—Update: National Listing of Fish and1. INTRODUCTION

1-4 Wildlife Advisories . Fish advisory results and trends reported in the 1999 Fish Advisory Fact Sheet (U.S. EPA, 1999c) are presented below. The most recent updates of the Fish Advisory Fact Sheet are available on the EPA website at http://epa.gov/OST/fish

. 1.1.2.1 Background—
The states, U.S. territories, and Native American tribes (hereafter referred to as states) have primary responsibility for protecting residents from the health risks of consuming contaminated noncommercially caught fish and wildlife. They do thisby issuing consumption advisories for the general population, including recreational and subsistence fishers, as well as for sensitive s ubpopulations (such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children). These advisories inform the public that high concentrations of chemical contaminants (e.g., mercury and dioxins) have been found in local fish and wildlife. The advisories include recommendations to limit or avoid consumption of certain fish and wildlife species from specified waterbodies or, in some cases, from specific waterbody types (e.g., all inland lakes). Similarly, in Canada, the provinces and territories have primary responsibility for issuing fish consumption advisories for their residents.
States typically issue five major types of advisories and bans to protect both the general population and specific subpopulations.

• When levels of chemical contamination pose a health risk to the general public, states may issue a no consumption advisory for the general population.

• When contaminant levels pose a health risk to sensitive subpopulations, states may issue a no consumption advisory for the sensitive subpopulation.

• In waterbodies where chemical contamination is less severe, states may issue an advisory recommending that either the general population or a sensitive subpopulation restrict their consumption of the specific species for which the advisory is issued.

• The fifth type of state-issued advisory is the commercial fishing ban, which prohibits the commercial harvest and sale of fish, shellfish, and/or wildlife species from a designated waterbody and, by inference, the consumption of all species identified in the fishing ban from that waterbody.
As shown in Table 1-1, advisories of all types increased overall in number from 1993 to 1998.

1.1.2.2 Advisories in Effect

—
The database includes information on

• Species and size ranges of fish and/or wildlife sampled

• Chemical contaminants identified in the advisory1. INTRODUCTION

1-5 • Geographic location of each advisory (including narrative information on landmarks, river miles, or latitude and l ongit ude coordinates of the affected waterbody and map showing location of waterbody)

• Lake acreage or river miles under advisory

• Population for whom the advisory was issued

• Fish tissue chemical residue data from waterbodies under advisory.
The 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 versions of the NLFWA database can generate national, regional, and state maps that illustrate any combination of these advisory parameters. In addition, the 1996 through 1998 versions of the database can provide information on the percentage of waterbodies in each state currently under an advisory and the percentage of waters assessed. A new feature of the 1998 database provides users access to fish tissue residue data for those waterbodies under advisory in 16 states. The name of each state contact, phone number, FAX number, and e-mail address are also provided so that users can obtain additional information concerning specific advisories. Comparable advisory information (excluding tissue residue data) and contact information for 1996 and 1997 are provided for each Canadian province or territory.
1.1.2.3 Advisory Trends

— The number of waterbodies in the United States under advisory reported in 1998 (2,506) represents a 9% increase from the number reported in 1997 (2,299 advisories) and a 98% increase from the number of advisories issued since 1993 (1,266 advisories). Figure 1-1 shows the number of advisories in effect for each state in 1998 and the number of advisories issued or rescinded since 1997. The increase in advisories issued by the states generally reflects an increase in the number of assessments of the levels of chemical contaminants in fish and wildlife tissues. These additional assessments were conducted as a result of the increased awareness of health risks associated with the consumption of chemically contaminated fish and wildlife. Some of the increase in advisory numbers, however, may be due to the increasing use of EPA risk assessment procedures in setting advisories rather than FDA action levels developed for commercial fisheries. Table 1-1. U.S. Advisories Issued from 1993 to 1998 by Type
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 No Consumption

–General Population 503 462 463 563 545 532 No Consumption

–Sensitive Subpopulation 555 720 778 1,022 1,119 1,211

Restricted Consumption

– General Population 993 1,182 1,372 1,763 1,843 2,062

Restricted Consumption

– Sensitive Subpopulation 689 900 1,042 1,370 1,450 1,595

Commercial Fishing Ban 30 30 55 50 52 50 Source: U.S. EPA 1999a, 1999c.1. INTRODUCTION

1-6 1.1.2.4 Bioaccumulative Pollutants

—Although U.S. advisories have been issued for a total of 46 chemical contaminants, most advisories issued have involved five primary contaminants. These chemical contaminants are biologically accumulated in the tissues of aquatic organisms at concentrations many times higher than concentrations in the water. In addition, these chemical contami nants persist for relatively long periods in sediments where they can be accumulated by bottom-dwelling organisms and passed up the food chain to fish. Concentrations of these contaminants in the tissues of aquatic organisms may be increased at each successive level of the food chain. As a result, top predators in a food chain, such as largemouth bass, salmon, or walleye, may have concentrations of these chemicals in their tissues that can be a million times higher than the concentrations in the water. Mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT (and its degradation products, DDE and DDD) were at least partly responsible for 99 percent of all fish consumption advisories in effect in 1998. (See Figure 1-2.) Source: U.S. EPA, 1999c.
Figure 1-1. Total number of fish advisories in effect in each state in 1998 (change from 1997).1. INTRODUCTION

1-7 Source: U.S. EPA, 1999a, 1999c.
Figure 1-2. Trends in number of advisories issued for various pollutants.

1.1.2.5 Wildlife Advisories

— In addition to advisories for fish and shellfish, the database also contains several wildlife advisories. Four states have issued consumption advisories for turtles: Arizona (3), Massachusetts (1), Minnesota (8), and New York (statewide advisory). One state (Massachusetts) has an advisory for frogs, New York has a statewide advisory for waterfowl (including mergansers), Arkansas has an advisory for woodducks, and Utah has an advisory for American coot and ducks. Maine issued a statewide advisory for moose liver and kidneys due to cadmium levels. No new wildlife advisories were issued in 1998.

1.1.2.6 1998 United States Advisories

— The 1998 database lists 2,506 advisories in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. Some of these advisories represent statewide advisories for certain types of waterbodies (e.g., lakes, rivers, and/orcoastal waters). An advisory may represent one waterbody or one type of waterbody within a state ’ s jurisdiction. Statewide advisories are counted as one advisory. The database counts one advisory for each waterbody name or type of waterbody regardless of the number of fish or wildlife species that are affected or the number of chemical contaminants detected at concentrations of human health concern. Eighteen states (Alabama, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas,1. INTRODUCTION

1-8 and Vermont) currently have statewide advisories in effect (see Table 1-2). Missouri rescinded its statewide advisories for lakes and rivers in 1998, and Mississippi added a statewide coastal advisory for mercury. A statewide advisory is issued to warn the public of the potential for widespread contamination of certain species of fish in certain types of waterbodies (e.g., lakes, rivers and streams, or coastal waters) or certain species of wildlife (e.g., moose or waterfowl). In such a case, the state may have found a level of contamination of a specific pollutant in a particular fish or wildlife species over a relatively wide geographic area that warrants advising the public of the situation.
The statewide advisories and 2,506 specifically named waterbodies represent approximately 15.8 percent of the Nation ’ s total lake acreage and 6.8% of the Nation ’ s total river miles. In addition, 100 percent of the Great Lakes waters and their connecting waters are also under advisory due to one or more contaminants (e.g., PCBs, dioxins, mercury, and/or chlordane). The Great Lakes waters are considered separately from other lakes, and their connecting waters are considered separately from other river miles.

Several states also have issued fish advisories for all of their coastal waters. Using coastal mileages calculated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an estimated 58.9 percent of the coastline of the contiguous 48 states currently is under advisory. This includes 61.5 percent of the Atlantic Coast and 100 percent of the Gulf Coast. No Pacific Coast state has issued a statewide advisory for any of its coastal waters although several localized areas along the Pacific Coast are under advisory. The Atlantic coastal advisories have been issued for a wide variety of chemical contaminants including mercury, PCBs, dioxins, and cadmium, while all of the Gulf Coast advisories have been issued for mercury.

1.1.2.7 Database Use and Access

— The NLFWA database was developed by EPA to help federal, state, and local government agencies and Native American tribes assess the potential for human health risks associated with consumption of chemical contaminants in noncommercially caught fish and wildlife. The data contained in this dat abase may also be used by the general public to make informed decisions about the waterbodies in which they choose to fish or harvest wildlife; the frequency with which they fish these waterbodies; the species, size, and number of fish theycollect; and the frequency with which they consume fish from specific waterbodies. Note: State fish advisory contact information and hyperlinks to state fish advisory websites are also provided.
EPA provides this 1998 update of the NLFWA database available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/OST/fish1. INTRODUCTION

1-9 Further information on specific advisories within a particular state is available from the appropriate state agency contact listed in the database. This is particularly important for advisories recommending that consumers restrict their consumption of fish from certain waterbodies. State health departments provide more specific information for restricted consumption advisories (RGP and RSP) on the appropriate meal size and meal frequency (number of meals per week or month) that is considered safe to consume for a specific consumer group (e.g., the general public versus pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children). For further information on Canadian advisories, contact the appropriate Province contact given in the database.
For more information concerning the National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program, contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program

— 4305 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone 202 260-7301 FAX 202 260-9830 e-mail: Bigler.Jeff@epa.gov Table 1-2. Summary of Statewide Advisories in Effect in 1998
State Lakes Rivers Coastal Waters Alabama

— — Mercury Connecticut Mercury Mercury PCBs District of Columbia PCBs PCBs

— Florida

— — Mercury Indiana

— Mercury PCBs

— Louisiana

— — Mercury Maine Mercury Mercury Dioxins Massachusetts Mercury Mercury PCBs Organics Michigan Mercury

— — Mississippi

— — Mercury New Hampshire Mercury Mercury PCBs New Jersey Mercury Mercury PCBs Cadmium

Dioxins New York PCBs Chlordane Mirex DDT PCBs Chlordane Mirex DDT PCBs Cadmium

Dioxins

North Carolina Mercury Mercury

— Ohio Mercury Mercury

— Rhode Island

— — PCBs Texas

— — Mercury Vermont Mercury Mercury

—
Source: U.S. EPA, 1999a, 1999c.1. INTRODUCTION

1-10 1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this manual is to provide overall guidance to states on methods for sampling and analyzing contaminants in fish and shellfish tissue that willpromote consistency in the data they use to determine the need for fish consumption advisories. This manual provides guidance only and does not constitute a regulatory requirement for the states. It is intended to describe what EPA believes to be scientifically sound methods for sample collection, chemical analyses, and statistical analyses of fish and shellfish tissue contaminant data for use in fish contaminant monitoring programs that have as their objective the protection of public health. This nonregulatory, technical guidance manual is intended for use as a handbook by state and local agencies that are responsible for sampling and analyzing fish and shellfish tissue. Adherence to this guidance will enhance the comparability of fish and shellfish contaminant data, especially in interstate waters and thus provide more standardized information on fish contamination problems.
It should be noted that the EPA methodology described in Volumes 1 and 2 of this guidance series offers great flexibility to state users. These documents are designed to meet the objectives of state monitoring and risk assessment programs by providing options to meet specific state or study needs within state budgetary constraints. The users of this fish advisory guidance document should recognize that it is the consistent application of the EPA methodology and processes rather than individual elements of the program sampling design that are of major importance in improving consistency among state fish advisory programs. For example, whether a state elects to collect three composite samples of five individual fish or four composite samples of eight individual fish as the basis of its state program is of less importance than a state designing and executing its monitoring program with attention to all elements of the EPA methodology having been considered and addressed during the planning and implementation phases.
One major factor currently affecting the comparability of fish advisory information nationwide, is the fact that the states employ different methodologies to determine the necessity for issuing an advisory. For example, some states currently do not use the EPA methodology at all or use it only in their assessment of health risksfor certain chemical contaminants. Often these states rely instead on exceedances of FDA action levels or tolerances to determine the need to issue an advisory. FDA ’ s mission is to protect the public health with respect to levels of chemical contaminants in all foods, including fish and shellfish sold in interstate commerce. FDA has developed both action levels and tolerances to address levels of contamination in foods. FDA may establish an action level when food contains a chemical from sources of contamination that cannot be avoided even by adherence to good agricultural or manufacturing practices, such as1. INTRODUCTION

1-11 contamination by a pesticide that persists in the environment. An action level is an administrative guideline or instruction to the agency field unit that defines the extent of contamination at which FDA may regard food as adulterated. An action level represents the limit at or above which FDA may take legal action to remove products from the marketplace. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA also may set tolerances for unavoidably added poisonous or deleterious substances, that is, substances that are either required in the production of food or are otherwise unavoidable by good manufacturing practices. A tolerance is a regulation that is established following formal rulemaking procedures; an action level is a guideline or “ instruction ” and is not a formal regulation (Boyer et al., 1991).

FDA ’ s jurisdiction in setting action levels or tolerances is limited to contaminants in food shipped and marketed in interstate commerce. Thus, the methodology used by FDA in establishing action levels or tolerances is directed at determining the health risks of chemical contaminants in fish and shellfish that are bought and sold in interstate commerce rather than in locally harvested fish and shellfish (Bolger et al., 1990). FDA action levels and tolerances are indicators of chemical residue levels in fish and shellfish that should not be exceeded for the general population who consume fish and shellfish typically purchased in supermarkets or fish markets that sell products that are harvested from a wide geographic area,including imported fish and shellfish products. However, the underlying assumptions used in the FDA methodology were never intended to be protective of recreational, tribal, ethnic, and subsistence fishers who typically consume larger quantities of fish than the general population and often harvest the fish and shellfish they consume from the same local waterbodies repeatedly over many years. If these local fishing and harvesting areas contain fish and shellfish with elevated tissue levels of chemical contaminants, these individuals potentially could have increased health risks associated with their consumption of the contaminated fish and shellfish.
The following chemical contaminants discussed in this volume have FDA action levels for their concentration in the edible portion of fish and shellfish: chlordane, DDT, DDE, DDD, heptachlor epoxide, mercury, and mirex. FDA has not set an action level for PCBs in fish but has established a tolerance in fish for this chemical. Table 1-3 compares the FDA action levels and tolerance for these six chemical contaminants with EPA ’ s recommended screening values (SVs) for recreational and subsistence fishers calculated for these target analytes using the EPA methodology.

The EPA SV for each chemical contaminant is defined as the concentration of the chemical in fish tissue that is of potential public health concern and that is used as a threshold value against which tissue residue levels of the contaminant in fish and shellfish can be compared. The SV is calculated based on both the1. INTRODUCTION

1-12 noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects of the chemical contaminant, which are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this volume. EPA recommends that the more conservative of the calculated values derived from the noncarcinogenic rather than the carcinogenic effects be used because it is more protective of the consumer population (either recreational or subsistence fishers). As can be seen in Table 1-3 for the recreational fisher SV, the EPA-recommended values typically range from 2 to 120 times lower and are thus more protective than the corresponding FDA action or tolerance level. This difference is even more striking for subsistence fishers for whom the SVs are 20 to 997 times lower than the FDA values.
EPA and FDA have agreed that the use of FDA Action Levels for the purpose of making local advisory determinations is inappropriate. In letters to all states,guidance documents, and annual conferences, this practice has been discouraged by EPA and FDA in favor of EPA ’ s risk-based approach to derive local fish consumption advisories.
EPA has provided this guidance to be especially protective of recreational fishers and subsistence fishers within the general U.S. population. EPA recognizes, however, that Native American subsistence fishers are a unique subsistence fisher population that needs to be considered separately. For Native American subsistence fishers, eating fish is not simply a dietary choice that can be completely eliminated if chemical contamination reaches unacceptable levels; rather, eating fish is an integral part of their lifestyle and culture. This traditional lifestyle is a living religion that includes values about environmental responsibility and community health as taught by elders and tribal religious leaders (Harris and Harper, 1977). Therefore, methods for balancing benefits and risks from eating Table 1-3. Comparison of FDA Action Levels and Tolerances with EPA Screening Values

Chemical contaminant FDA Action Level a (ppm) EPA SV for Recreational Fishers (ppm) EPA SV for Subsistence Fishers (ppm)
Chlordane 0.3 0.114 0.014
Total DDT 5 0.117 0.014
Dieldrin 0.3 2.50 x 10 -3 3.07 x 10 -4 Heptachlor epoxide 0.3 4.39 x 10 -3 5.40 x 10 -4 Mercury 1 .0 0.40 0.049
Mirex 0.1 0.80 0.098
FDA Tolerance

Level (ppm)
PCBs 2 0.02 2.45 x 10 -3

a U.S. FDA 1998.1. INTRODUCTION

1-13 contaminated fish must be evaluated differently than for the general fisher population (see Section 5.1.3.2).
To enhance the use of this guidance as a working document, EPA will issue additional information and updates to users as appropriate. It is anticipated that updates will include minor revisions such as the addition or deletion of chemicals from the recommended list of target analytes, new screening values as new toxicologic data become available, and new chemical analysis procedures for some target analytes as they are developed. A new edition of this document will be issued to include the addition of major new areas of guidance or when major changes are made to the Agency ’ s risk assessment procedures.

EPA ’ s Office of Water realizes that adoption of these recommended methods requires adequate funding. In practice, funding varies among states and resource limitations will cause states to tailor their fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs to meet their own needs. States must consider tr adeoffs among the various parameters when developing their fish contaminant monitoring programs. These parameters include

• Total number of stations sampled

• Intensity of sampling at each site

• Number of chemical analyses and their cost

• Resources expended on data storage and analysis, QA and quality control (QC), and sample archiving.
Consideration of these tradeoffs will determine the number of sites sampled, number of target analytes analyzed at each site, number of target species collected, and number of replicate samples of each target species collected at each site (Crawford and Luoma, 1993).

1.3 OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of this manual are to
1. Recommend a tiered monitoring strategy designed to

• Screen waterbodies ( Tier 1 ) to identify those harvested sites where chemical contaminant concentrations in the edible portions of fish and shellfish exceed human consumption levels of potential concern (screening values [ SVs ]). SVs for contaminants with carcinogenic effects are calculated based on selection of an acceptable cancer risk level. SVs for contaminants with noncarcinogenic effects are concentrations determined to be without appreciable noncancer health risk. For a contaminant with both carcinogenic and noncarci nogenic effects, EPA recommends that the lower (more conservative) of these two calculated SVs be used.1. INTRODUCTION

1-14 • Conduct intensive followup sampling ( Tier 2, Phase I ) to determine the magnitude of the contamination in edible portions of fish and shellfish species commonly consumed by humans in waterbodies identified in the screening process.

• Conduct intensive sampling at additional sites ( Tier 2, Phase II ) in a waterbody where screening values were exc eeded to determine the geographic extent of contamination in various size classes of fish and shellfish.

• Conduct intensive followup sampling in waterbodies where none of the 25 SVs are exceeded in order to establish areas of unrestricted fish consumption or “ green areas. ”
2. Recommend target species and criteria for selecting additional species if the recommended target species are not present at a site.
3. Recommend target analytes to be analyzed in fish and shellfish tissue and criteria for selecting additional analytes.
4. Recommend risk-based procedures for calculating target analyte screening values.
5. Recommend standard field procedures including

• Site selection

• Sampling time

• Sample type and number of replicates

• Sample collection procedures including sampling equipment

• Field recordkeeping and chain of custody

• Sample processing, preservation, and shipping.
6. Recommend cost-effective, technically sound analytical methods and associated QA and QC procedures, including identification of

• Analytical methods for target analytes with detection limits ca pable of measuring tissue concentrations at or below SVs

• Sources of recommended certified reference materials

• Federal agencies currently conducting QA interlaboratory comparison programs. 7. Recommend procedures for data analysis and reporting of fish and shellfish contaminant data.
8. Recommend QA and QC procedures for all phases of the monitoring program and provide guidance for documenting QA and QC requirements in a QA plan or in a combined work/QA project plan.1. INTRODUCTION

1-15 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF MANUAL TO OTHER GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
This manual is the first in a series of four documents to be prepared by EPA ’ s Office of Water as part of a Federal Assistance Plan to help states standardize fish consumption advisories. This series of four documents

— Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories includes

• Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis (EPA 823-R-93-002), published August 1993; a second edition, published September 1995; and the current third edition (EPA-823-B-00-007) to be published in November 2000.

• Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits (EPA 823-B-94- 004), published June 1994; a second edition (EPA 823-B-97-009), published in July 1997; and a third edition (EPA-823-B-00-008) to be published in November 2000.

• Volume 3: Overview of Risk Management (EPA 823-B-96-006), published in June 1996.

• Volume 4: Risk Communication (EPA 823-R-95-001), published March 1995.
This sampling and analysis manual is not intended to be an exhaustive guide to all aspects of sampling, statistical design, development of risk-based screening values, laboratory analyses, QA and QC considerations, data analysis, and reporting for fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs. Key references are provided in Section 10, Literature Cited, that detail various aspects of these topics.

1.5 CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1
Figure 1-3 shows how Volume 1 fits into the overall guidance series and lists the major categories of information provided. The first five sections discuss the history of the EPA Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program, monitoring strategy, including selection of target fish and shellfish species, selection of target analytes, and calculation of scr eening values for all target analytes. Section 6 provides guidance on field sampling and preservation procedures. Sections 7 and 8 provide guidance on laboratory proc edures including sample handling and analysis, and Section 9 discusses data analysis and reporting procedures.
Appropriate QA and QC considerations are integral parts of each of the recommended procedures. Section 10 is a compilation of all literature cited in Sections 1 through 9 of this document. New information or revisions to existing information contained in previous editions of this guidance document are briefly described in Section 1.6.
Section 1 of this document reviews the historical development of this guidance document series, describes the purpose and objectives of the Volume 1 manual,1. INTRODUCTION

1-16 1. Introduction

2. Monitoring Strategy 2. Monitoring Strategy

3. Target Species

4. Target Analytes

5. Screening Values for Target Analytes

6. Field Procedures

7. Laboratory Procedures I

— Sample Handling

8. Laboratory Procedures II

— Sample Analyses

9. Data Analysis and Reporting

10. Literature Cited 

### Volume 3: Overview of Risk Management Volume 3: Overview of Risk Management

Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis

Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits

Volume 4: Risk Communication Volume 4: Risk Communication

Figure 1-3. Series summary: Guidance for assessing chemical contamination data for use in fish advisories.1. INTRODUCTION

1-17 outlines the relationship of the manual to the other three documents in the series, describes the contents of the manual, and identifies new revisions made to the guidance of this third edition.
Section 2 outlines the recommended strategy for state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs. This strategy is designed to (1) routinely screen waterbodies to i dentify those locations where chemical contami nants in edible portions of fish and shellfish exceed human health scr eening values, (2) sample more intensively those waterbodies where exceedances of these SVs have been found in order to assess the magnitude and the geographic extent of the contamination, and (3) identify those areas where chemical contaminant concentrations are low and would allow states to designate areas where unrestricted fish consumption may be permitted.
Section 3 discusses the purpose of using target species and criteria for selection of target species for both screening and intensive studies. Lists of recommended target species are provided for inland fresh waters, Great Lakes waters, and seven distinct estuarine and coastal marine regions of the United States.
Section 4 presents a list of recommended target analytes to be considered for inclusion in screening and intensive studies, briefly discusses the original criteria used in selecting these analytes, provides a summary of the toxicological information available for each analyte as well as pertinent information on the analyte ’ s detection in national and regional fish monitoring studies.
Section 5 describes the new EPA risk-based procedure for calculating screening values for target analytes using (1) an adult body weight of 70 kg, (2) a lifetime exposure of 70 years, and (3) new consumption rate default values for both the general population and recreational fishers (17.5 g/d) and subsistence fishers (142.4 g/d). The last part of this section describes how to compare these new SVs against results obtained in fish tissue residue analysis.
Section 6 recommends field procedures to be followed from the time fish or shellfish samples are collected until they are delivered to the laboratory for processing and analysis. Guidance is provided on site selection and sample collection procedures; the guidance addresses material and equipment requirements, time of sampling, size of animals to be collected, sample type, and number of samples. Sample identification, handling, preservation, shipping, and storage procedures are also described.
Section 7 describes recommended laboratory procedures for sample handling including: sample measurements, sample processing procedures, and sample preservation and storage procedures.
Section 8 presents recommended laboratory procedures for sample analyses, including cost-effective analytical methods and associated QC procedures; and information on sources of certified reference materials; recommended analytical1. INTRODUCTION

1-18 techniques for target analytes, including revised detection and quantitation limits; information on the per-sample cost of chemical analysis for each target analyte; and information on federal agencies currently conducting interlaboratory comparison programs.
Section 9 includes procedures for data analysis to determine the need for additional monitoring and risk assessment and for data reporting.
Supporting documentation for this guidance is provided in Section 10, Literature Cited and in Appendixes A through N.

1.6 NEW INFORMATION AND REVISIONS TO VOLUME 1

This 3 rd edition of Volume 1 contains newly prepared material as well as major updates and revisions to existing information. A brief summary of major additions and revisions is provided below.

Section 1

• New information is presented on the NLFWA database, including the 5-year trend in the total number of advisories issued nationwide, the number of advisories issued for five major pollutants of concern, and the issuance of increasing numbers of statewide advisories for freshwater lakes and/or rivers and coastal marine areas.

• Additional information describes the flexibility that is built into the EPA methodology, which allows the method to be used to meet a wide variety of state or tribal study needs within budgetary constraints.

• Clarification of the FDA methodology is provided emphasizing the inappropriateness of the method and reasons states should adopt and use the EPA methodology when issuing fish consumption advisories to protect their recreational and subsistence fishers.

Section 2

• Updated information is presented in Table 2-1 to be consistent with monitoring design and risk assumptions used in this 3 rd edition.

• New discussion of the criteria states may use to identify green areas where chemical contaminant concentrations are at or below the screening values for recreational or subsistence fishers is introduced with more detailed information provided in Appendix B.1. INTRODUCTION

1-19 Section 3

• Several tables, including Tables 3-7 and 3-19, were updated to include new information from the 1998 NLFWA database on the number of states that have issued fish advisories for freshwater and marine species.

• Table 3-9 was updated and associated narrative text was revised to include information on studies using turtles as biomonitors of environmental contaminants.

Section 4

• Information on the environmental sources, toxicology, and the number of fish advisories issued in 1998 for each of the 25 target analytes was updated.

• New information is included on the range in concentrations of each contaminant detected in the FWS National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program and the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish as well as information on more recent regional studies.

• A procedure is described for the selection and prioritization of target analytes for analysis predicated on a watershed-based approach that takes into consideration land use categories, as well as geological characteristics, regional differences, nati onal fish advisory trends, and monitoring and analysis costs.

• Additional guidance is presented on organophosphate pesticides and when and under what situations to monitor fish tissues for these compounds.

• A clarification is provided of the recommendation for selection of target species, especially bivalve molluscs and/or crustaceans when PAH contamination is suspected.

• A new discussion is provided to reflect the Agency ’ s position on using Aroclor and congener analysis for calculating total PCB concentration.

• A new discussion is provided for determining the TEQ value for dioxins, which are now defined as including the 17 2,3,7,8 congeners of dioxin and 2,3,7,8 congeners of dibenzofuran, and the 12 coplanar PCBs with dioxin-like properties based on recent guidance from the World Health Organization (Van den Berg et al., 1998).

• Several tables, including Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-7, and 4-9 were revised with new information. Tables 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, and 4-8 are new to the document.

• All of the toxicological information was revised in light of the most current information concerning each target analyte.1. INTRODUCTION

1-20 Section 5

• Revisions were made describing major changes in the assumptions used in the risk assessment equations to calculate screening values including use ofdefault consumption rates of 17.5 g/d for the general population and recreational fishers and 142.4 g/d for subsistence fishers based on more recent information from the 1994 to 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals study conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

• Additional guidance is provided on how states should handle the interpretation and risk assessment of chemicals that have detection limits higher than the risk-based screening values.

• Tables 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 were revised to reflect changes in consumption rates. Screening values shown in Tables 5-3 and 5-4 were developed using the new consumption rates as well as the most recent RfD and cancer slope factors available.

• Additional information is provided on Native American subsistence fishers, and Table 5-2 was added to summarize several recent studies on Native American fish consumption rates.

• Additional guidance is provided on how states should deal with interpreting analytical results in cases where the screening value is lower than the detection limit for a particular analyte.

• New guidance is provided on determining total PCBs by summary Aroclor equivalents or PCB congeners.

• New information from the World Health Organization (Van den Berg et al., 1998) is included in Table 5-6 showing the most recent Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) for the 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxins, dibenzofurans, and the 12 coplanar PCBs.

Section 6

• Additional information is provided on the statistical implications associated with deviations from the recommended sampling design, including the use of unequal numbers of fish per composite, sizes of fish exceeding the size range recommendations for composites, and the use of unequal numbers of replicate samples across sampling sites.

• Clarification is provided on the recommended number of fish that should make up a composite sample.1. INTRODUCTION

1-21 • More explicit information is provided regarding exceedances of screening values and the statistical basis for issuing a new advisory or rescinding an existing advisory.

• Discussion is provided on the number of samples necessary to characterize different waterbody types and sizes of waterbodies with consideration given to the home range and mobility of the target species.

• How regional data should be used in the risk assessment process to address statewide advisories is discussed.

• Additional guidance is provided on how sample type selection s hould be based on the study objectives as well as on the sample type consumed by the target population.

• Clarification is provided as to EPA ’ s position on the use of dead, lacerated, or mutilated fish for human health risk assessments.

• New information is provided on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries permit requirements in situations where concerns exist about the impact of sampling for the target species in areas inhabited by threatened or endangered species.

• Revisions were made in recordkeeping for field sampling associated with use of the Year 2000 compliant format (YYYYMMDD) for sampling date information.

Section 7

• Revisions were made in recordkeeping forms to initiate use of the Year 2000 compliant format for the date of sampling and analysis procedures.

Section 8

• Updated information is included in Tables 8-1 through 8-5.

• Updated information is provided on the EPA Environmental Monitoring Methods Index System (EMMI).

• Revised information is provided in Section 8.3.3.8.1 concerning round-robin analysis interlaboratory comparison programs.

Section 9

• New information is included on the National Tissue Residue Data Repository, now housed within the NLFWA database.1. INTRODUCTION

1-22 • Recommended data reporting requirements were updated (Figure 9-1) to include Year 2000 compliant format.

• Detailed information is provided on the Internet-based data entry fac ility contained within the NLFWA database that can accept fish contaminant residue data to support state fish advisories.

• An example of the new data tables (Figure 9-2) currently used in the fish tissue residue data repository is provided.

Section 10

• Literature citations were revised to include all new references cited in Sections 1 through 9.
Appendixes:

• The following appendixes were revised or added:
A - EPA 1993 Fish Contamination Workgroup Members B - Screening Values for Defining Green Areas D - Fish and Shellfish Species for Which State Consumption Advisories Have Been Issued F - Pesticide and Herbicides Recommended as Target Analytes G - Target Analyte Dose-Response Variables and Associated Information I - Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidance M - Sources of Reference Materials**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-1 

## SECTION 2
**MONITORING STRATEGY**
The objective of this section is to describe the strategy recommended by the EPA Office of Water for use by states in their fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs. A two-tiered strategy is recommended as the most cost-effective approach for State contaminant monitoring programs to obtain data necessary to evaluate the need to issue fish or shellfish consumption advisories. This monitoring strategy is shown schematically in Figure 2-1 and consists of

• **Tier 1—Screening studies** of a large number of sites for chemical contamination where sport, subsistence, and/or commercial fishing is conducted. This screening will help states identify those sites where concentrations of chemical contaminants in edible portions of commonly consumed fish and shellfish indicate the potential for significant health risks to human consumers.

• **Tier 2** 

**— Two-phase intensive studies**  of problem areas identified in screening studies to determine the magnitude of contamination in edible portions of commonly consumed fish and shellfish species ( **Phase I** ), to determine size-specific levels of contamination, and to assess the geographic extent of the contamination ( **Phase II** ).
One key objective in the recommendation of this approach is to improve the data used by states for issuing fish and shellfish consumption advisories. Other specific aims of the recommended strategy are

• To ensure that resources for fish contaminant monitoring programs are allocated in the most cost-effective way. By limiting the number of sites targeted for intensive studies, as well as the number of target analytes at each intensive sampling site, screening studies help to reduce overall program costs while still allowing public health protection objectives to be met.

• To ensure that sampling data are appropriate for developing risk-based consumption advisories.

• To ensure that sampling data are appropriate for determining contaminant concentrations in various size (age) classes of each target species so that states can give size-specific advice on contaminant concentrations (as appropriate).**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-2**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-3**Figure 2-1. Recommended strategy for state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs. 2. MONITORING STRATEGY** 

2-4 • To ensure that sampling designs are appropriate to allow statistical hypothesis testing. Such sampling designs permit the use of statistical tests to detect a difference between the average tissue contaminant concentration at a site and the human health screening value for any analyte.
The following elements must be considered when planning either screening studies or more intensive followup sampling studies:

• Study objective

• Target species (and size classes)

• Target analytes

• Target analyte screening values

• Sampling locations • Sampling times

• Sample type

• Sample replicates

• Sample analysis

• Data analysis and reporting.
Detailed guidance for each of these elements, for screening studies ( **Tier 1** ) and for both Phase I and Phase II of intensive studies ( **Tier 2** ), is provided in this document. The key elements of the monitoring strategy are summarized in Table 2-1, with reference to the section number of this document where each element is discussed.
**2.1 SCREENING STUDIES (TIER 1)**
The primary aim of screening studies is to identify frequently fished sites where concentrations of chemical contaminants in edible fish and shellfish composite samples exceed specified human health screening values and thus require moreintensive followup sampling. Ideally, screening studies should include all waterbodies where commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing is practiced; specific sampling sites should include areas where various types of fishing are conducted routinely (e.g., from a pier, from shore, or from private and commercial boats), thereby exposing a significant number of individuals to potentially adverse health effects. Composites of skin-on fillets (except for catfish and other scaleless species, which are usually prepared as skin-off fillets) and edible portions of shellfish are recommended for contaminant analyses in screening studies to provide conservative estimates of typical exposures for the general population. If consumers remove the skin and fatty areas from a fish before preparing it for eating, exposures to some contaminants can be reduced (see U.S. EPA, 2000a, Appendix C of Volume 2 of this guidance document series).

**Note:** If the target population of consumers includes primarily ethnic or subsistence fishers who consume the whole fish or tissues of the fish not typically consumed by the general population, state monitoring programs should include the fish sample type associated with the target consumers ’ dietary and/or culinary preference (see Section 6.1.1.6, Sample Type, for additional information.)**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-5See notes at end of table.(continued)**Table 2-1. Recommended Strategy for State Fish and Shellfish Contaminant Monitoring Programs Program element** **Tier 1 Screening study Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase I) Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase II)** Objective(see Section 2)Identify frequently fished sites where commonlyconsumed fish and shellfish target species arecontaminated and may pose potential humanhealth risk.Assess and verify magnitude of tissuecontamination at screening site forcommonly consumed target species.Assess geographic extent ofcontamination in selected size classesof commonly consumed target species.Target species andsize classes(see Sections 3and 6)Select target species from commonlyconsumed species using the followingadditional criteria: known to bioaccumulate highconcentrations of contaminants and distributedover a wide geographic area.Resample target species at sites wherethey were found to be contaminated inscreening study.Resample at additional sites in thewaterbody 3 size classes of the targetspecies found to be contaminated inPhase I study.Recommended types of target species:Inland fresh 1 bottom-feederwaters: 1 predatorGreat Lakes: 1 bottom-feeder1 predatorEstuarine/ 1 shellfish andmarine: 1 fish speciesor2 fish species (one species should bebottom-feeder).OPTIONAL: If resources are limited and astate cannot conduct Tier 2 intensive studies,the state may find it more cost-effective tocollect additional samples during the Tier 1screening study. States**may**collect (1) onecomposite sample of each of three size classesfor each target species, (2) replicate compositesamples for each target species, or (3) replicatecomposite samples of each of three sizeclasses for each target species.OPTIONAL: If resources are limitedand a state cannot conduct Tier 2,Phase II, intensive studies, the statemay find it more cost-effective to collectadditional samples during the Tier 2,Phase I, intensive study. States**may**collect replicate composite samples ofthree size classes of the target speciesfound to be contaminated to assesssize-specific contaminant concentrations. Other commonly consumedtarget species may also be sampled ifresources allow.OPTIONAL: If resources allow, selectadditional commonly consumed targetspecies using same criteria as in PhaseI study.**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-6**Table 2-1. (continued) Program element** **Tier 1 Screening study Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase I) Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase II)** See notes at end of table.(continued)Target analytes(see Section 4)Consider all target analytes listed in Table 4-1for analysis but prioritize the 25 target analytesbased on water and sediment sampling results,land use within the watershed, geographiccharacteristics, regional and national advisorytrends and analytical costs. Include additionalsite-specific target analytes as appropriatebased on current or historic data.Analyze only for those target analytesfrom Tier 1 screening study thatexceeded SVs.Analyze only for those target analytesfrom Tier 2, Phase I, study thatexceeded SVs.Screening values(see Section 5)Calculate SVs using oral RfDs for noncarcinogens and using oral slope factors and anappropriate risk level (10-4to 10-7) for carcinogens, for adults consuming 17.5 g/d and142.4 g/d of fish and shellfish (default values)or based on site-specific dietary data.**Note:**In this guidance document, EPA’s Officeof Water used 17.5 g/d (for recreational fishers)and 142.4 g/d (for subsistence fishers)consumption rates, 70-kg adult body weight,and, for carcinogens, used a 10-5risk level,70-year exposure, and assumed no loss ofcontaminants during preparation or cooking.States may use other SVs for site-specificexposure scenarios by adjusting values forconsumption rate, body weight, risk level,exposure period, and contaminant loss duringpreparation or cooking.Use same SVs as in screening study. Use same SVs as in screening study.Sampling sites(see Section 6)Sample target species at sites in each harvestarea that have a high probability of contamination and at presumed clean sites or given areasas resources allow (see Appendix A).Sample target species at each siteidentified in the screening study wherefish/shellfish tissue concentrationsexceed SVs to assess the magnitude ofcontamination.Sample at additional sites in the harvestarea 3 size classes of the target speciesfound to be contaminated in Phase Istudy to assess the geographic extent ofthe contamination in the waterbody.**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-7**Table 2-1. (continued) Program element** **Tier 1 Screening study Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase I) Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase II)** See notes at end of table.(continued)Sampling times(see Section 6)Sample during legal harvest season whentarget species are most available toconsumers. Ideally, sampling time should notinclude the spawning period for target speciesunless the target species can be legallyharvested during this period.Same as screening study. Same as screening study.Sample type(see Sections 6and 7)Collect composite fillet samples (skin on, bellyflap included) for each target fish species andcomposite samples of edible portions of targetshellfish species. The exceptions to the "skinon, belly flap included" recommendation is touse skin-off fillets for catfish and otherscaleless species.Same as screening study. Same as screening study but collectcomposite samples for three sizeclasses of each target species asappropriate.OPTIONAL: States**may**use individual fishsamples, whole fish, or other sample types, ifnecessary, to improve exposure estimates oflocal fish-, shellfish-, or turtle-consumingpopulations. Sample type should reflect dietaryand fish preparation methods of the targetpopulation of concern.Same as screening study. Same as screening study.Sample replicates(see Section 6)Collect one composite sample for each targetspecies.**Collection of replicate composite samples is encouraged but is optional** . Ifresources allow, collect a minimum of onereplicate composite sample for each targetspecies at 10% of the screening sites for QC.Collect replicate composites for eachtarget species at each Phase I site.Collect replicate composites of threesize classes for each target species ateach Phase II site.Sample analysis(see Section 8)Use standardized and quantitative analyticalmethods with limits of detection adequate toallow reliable quantitation of selected targetanalytes at or below SVs.Use same analytical methods as inscreening study.Use same analytical methods as inscreening study.**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-8**Table 2-1. (continued) Program element** **Tier 1 Screening study Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase I) Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase II)** See notes at end of table.(continued)Data analysis andreporting(see Sections 6,7, 8, and 9)For each target species, compare targetanalyte concentrations of composite samplewith SVs to determine which sites requireTier 2, Phase I, intensive study.For each target species, comparetarget analyte arithmetic meanconcentrations of replicate compositesamples with SVs to determine whichsites require Phase II intensive study.If resources are insufficient to conductPhase II intensive study, conduct a riskassessment and assess the need forissuing a preliminary fish or shellfishconsumption advisory.For each of three size classes withineach target species, compare targetanalyte arithmetic mean concentrationsof replicate composite samples at eachPhase II site with SVs to determinegeographic extent of fish or shellfishcontamination. Assess the need forissuing a final fish or shellfishconsumption advisory.Data analysis andreporting(see Sections 6,7, 8, and 9)(continued)The following information should be reportedfor each target species at each site:The following information should bereported for each target species at eachsite:The following information should bereported for each of three size classeswithin each target species at each site:•Site location (e.g., sample site name, waterbody name, type of waterbody, andlatitude/longitude)•Same as screening study.•Same as screening study.•Scientific and common name of targetspecies•Same as screening study•Same as screening study•Sampling date and time•Sampling gear type used•Sampling depth•Number of QC replicates (optional)•Number of individual organisms used in thecomposite sample and in the QC replicatecomposite sample if applicable•Same as screening study•Same as screening study•Sampling depth•Number of replicates•Number of individual organismsused in each replicate compositesample•Same as screening study•Same as screening study•Sampling depth•Same as Phase I study•Same as Phase I study**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-9**Table 2-1. (continued) Program element** **Tier 1 Screening study Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase I) Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase II)** See notes at end of table.(continued)•Predominant characteristics of specimensused in the composite sample and in theQC replicate if applicable (e.g., life stage,age, sex, total length or body size) anddescription of fish fillet or edible parts ofshellfish (tissue type) used•Predominant characteristics ofspecimens used in each replicatecomposite sample (e.g., life stage,age, sex, total length or body size)and description of fish fillet or edibleparts of shellfish (tissue type) used•Same as Phase I study•Analytical methods used (including amethod for lipid analysis) and methoddetection and quantitation limits for eachtarget analyte.•Same as screening study•Same as screening studyData analysis andreporting(see Sections 6,7, 8, and 9)(continued)•Sample cleanup procedures•Data qualifiers•Percent lipid in each composite sample.•Same as screening study.•Same as screening study.•Same as screening study.•Same as screening study.•Same as screening study.•Same as screening study.•For each target analyte:•For each target analyte:•For each target analyte:–Total wet weight of composite sample(g) used in analysis–Total wet weight of eachreplicate composite sample (g)used in analysis–Same as Phase I study–Measured concentration (wet weight) incomposite sample including units ofmeasurement for target analyte–Measured concentration (wetweight) in each replicatecomposite sample and units ofmeasurement for target analyte–Same as Phase I study–Measured concentration (wet weight) inthe QC replicate, if applicable–Range of concentrations (wetweight) for each set of replicatecomposite samples–Same as Phase I study–Mean (arithmetic) concentration(wet weight) for each set ofreplicate composite samples–Same as Phase I study–Standard deviation of meanconcentration (wet weight)–Same as Phase I study**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-10**Table 2-1. (continued) Program element** **Tier 1 Screening study Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase I) Tier 2 Intensive study (Phase II)** –Evaluation of laboratory performance(i.e., description of all QA and QCsamples associated with the sample(s)and results of all QA and QC analyses)–Same as screening study–Same as screening study–Comparison of measured concentrationof composite sample with SV and clearindication of whether SV was exceeded–Comparison of target analytearithmetic mean concentration ofreplicate composite sampleswith SV using hypothesis testingand clear indication of whetherthe SV was exceeded–Same as Phase I studyQA = Quality assurance. RfDs = Reference doses.QC = Quality control. SVs = Screening values.**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-11 Because the sampling sites in screening studies are focused primarily on the most likely problem areas and the numbers of commonly consumed target species and samples collected are limited, relatively little detailed information is obtained on the magnitude and geographic extent of contamination in a wide variety of harvestable fish and shellfish species of concern to consumers. More information is obtained through additional intensive followup studies ( **Tier 2, Phases I and II** ) conducted at potentially contaminated sites identified in screening studies.
Although the EPA Office of Water recommends that screening study results not be used as the sole basis for conducting a risk assessment, EPA recognizes that this practice may be unavoidable if monitoring resources are limited or if the state must issue an advisory based on detection of elevated concentrations in one composite sample. States have several options for collecting samples during the **Tier 1** screening study (see Figure 2-1), which can provide additional information on contamination without necessitating additional field monitoring expenditures as part of the **Tier 2** intensive studies.
The following assumptions are made in this guidance document for sampling fish and shellfish and for calculating human health SVs for recreational and subsistence fishers:

• Use of commonly consumed target species that are dominant in the catch and have high bioaccumulation potential (see Section 3, Target Species)

• Use of fish fillets (with skin on and belly flap tissue included) for scaled finfish species, use of skinless fillets for scaleless finfish species, and use of edible portions of shellfish (see Section 6.1.1.6, Sample Type)

• Use of fish and shellfish above legal size to maximum size in the target species

• Use of a 10 -5 risk level, a human body weight of 70 kg (average adult), a consumption rate of 17.5 g/d for recreational fishers and 142.4 g/d for subsistence fishers, and a 70-yr lifetime exposure period to calculate SVs for carcinogens.

• Use of a human body weight of 70 kg (average adult) and a consumption rate of 17.5 g/d for recreational fishers and 142.4 g/d for subsistence fishers to calculate SVs for noncarcinogens (see Section 5, Screening Values for Target Analytes).

• Use of no contaminant loss during preparation and cooking or from incomplete absorption in the intestines.
For certain site-specific situations, states may wish to use one or more of the following exposure assumptions to protect the health of high-end fish consumers such as subsistence fishers at potentially greater risk:**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-12 • Use of commonly consumed target species that are dominant in the catch and have the highest bioaccumulation potential

• Use of whole fish or whole body of shellfish (excluding shell of bivalves), which may provide a better estimate of contaminant exposures in ethnic or Native American subsistence populations that consume whole fish or shellfish

• Use of the largest (oldest) individuals in the target species to represent the highest likely exposure levels

• Use of a 10 -6 or 10 -7 risk level, body weights less than 70 kg for women and children, site-specific consumption rates for sport fishers or for subsistencefishers or other consumption rates based on dietary studies of local fishconsuming populations, and a 70-yr exposure period to calculate SVs for carcinogens. **Note:** EPA has reviewed national data on the consumption rate for sport and subsistence fishers and the recommended default values for these populations are 17.5 and 142.4 g/d, respectively (USDA/ARS, 1998; U.S. EPA, 2000c).

• Use of body weights less than 70 kg for women and children and site-specific consumption rates for sport fishers or for subsistence fishers or other consumption rates based on dietary studies of local fish-consuming populations to calculate SVs for noncarcinogens. **Note:** EPA has reviewed national data on the consumption rate for sport and subsistence fishers and the recommended default values for these populations are 17.5 and 142.4 g/d, respectively (USDA/ARS, 1998; U.S. EPA, 2000c).
There are additional aspects of the screening study design that states should review because they affect the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data. These include

• Use of composite samples, which results in loss of information on the distribution of contaminant concentrations in the individual sampled fish and shellfish. Maximum contaminant concentrations in individual sampled fish, which can be used as an indicator of potentially harmful levels of contamination (U.S. EPA, 1989d), are not available when composite sampling is used.

• Use of a single sample per screening site for each target species, which precludes estimating the variability of the contamination level at that site and, consequently, of conducting valid statistical comparisons to the target analyte SVs.

• Uncertainty factors affecting the numerical calculation of quantitative health risk information (i.e., references doses and cancer slope factors) as well as human health SVs.**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-13The use of composite samples is often the most cost-effective method for estimating average tissue concentrations of analytes in target species populations to assess chronic human health risks. However, there are some situations in which individual sampling can be more appropriate from both ecological and risk assessment perspectives. Individual sampling provides a direct measure of the range and variability of contaminant levels in target fish populations. Information on maximum contaminant concentrations in individual fish is useful in evaluating acute human health risks. Estimates of the variability of contaminant levels among individual fish can be used to ensure that studies meet desired statistical objectives. For example, the population variance of a contaminant can be used to estimate the sample size needed to detect statistically significant differencesin contaminant screening values compared to the mean contaminant concentration. Finally, the analysis of individual samples may be desirable, or necessary, when the objective is to minimize the impacts of sampling on certain vulnerable target populations, such as predators in headwater streams and aquatic turtles, and in cases where the cost of collecting enough individuals for a composite sample is excessive. For states that wish to consider use of individual sampling during either the screening or intensive studies, additional information on collecting and analyzing individual samples is provided in Appendix C. States should consider the potential effects of these study design features when evaluating screening study results.

**Note:** As part of screening studies, states may wish to issue information not onlyon restricting or avoiding consumption of certain species from certain waterbodies, but on promoting unrestricted fish consumption in those waterbodies where the levels of contamination are below the SVs for all 25 of the target analytes. Waterbodies in which target analyte concentrations (see Section 5) are below the selected target analyte SVs are known as “ green areas ” where states can promote fish consumption to specified fisher populations. Guidance to assist states in designating these safe or green areas is provided in detail in Appendix B.
**2.2 INTENSIVE STUDIES (TIER 2)**
The primary aims of intensive studies are to assess the magnitude of tissue contamination at screening sites, to determine the size class or classes of fish within a target species whose contaminant concentrations exceed the SVs, and to assess the geographic extent of the contamination for the target species in the waterbody under investigation. With respect to the design of intensive studies,EPA recommends a sampling strategy that may not be feasible for some sitespecific environments. Specifically, EPA recognizes that some waterbodies cannot sustain the same intensity of sampling (i.e., number of replicate composite samples per site and number of indivi duals per composite sample) that others (i.e., those used for commercial harvesting) can sustain. In such cases, state fisheries personnel may consider modifying the sampling strategy (e.g., analyzing individual fish) for intensive studies to protect the fishery resource. Although one strategy cannot cover all situations, these sampling guidelines are reasonable for the majority of environmental conditions, are scientifically defensible, and provide**2. MONITORING STRATEGY**

2-14 information that can be used to assess the risk to public health. Regardless of the final study design and protocol chosen for a fish contaminant monitoring program, state fisheries, environmental, and health personnel should always evaluate and document the procedures used to ensure that results obtained meet state objectives for protecting human health.
The allocation of limited funds to screening studies or to intensive studies should always be guided by the goal of conducting adequate sampling of state fish and shellfish resources to ensure the protection of public health. The amount of sampling that can be performed by a state will be determined by available economic resources. Ideally, state agencies will allocate funds for screening as many sites as is deemed necessary while reserving adequate resources to conduct subsequent intensive studies at sites where excessive fish tissue contamination is detected. State environmental and health personnel should use all information collected in both screening and intensive studies to (1) conduct a risk assessment to determine whether the issuance of an advisory is warranted, (2) use risk management to determine the nature and extent of the advisory, and then (3) effectively communicate this risk to the fish-consuming public. Additional information on risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication procedures will be provided in subsequent volumes in this series.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-1 

## SECTION 3

**TARGET SPECIES**
The primary objectives of this section are to: (1) discuss the purpose of using target species, (2) describe the criteria used by the 1993 EPA Fish Contaminant Workgroup to select target species, and (3) provide lists of recommended target species. Target species recommended for freshwater and estuarine/marine ecosystems are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.

**3.1 PURPOSE OF USING TARGET SPECIES**
The use of target species allows comparison of fish, shellfish, and turtle tissue contaminant monitoring data among sites over a wide geographic area. Differences in habitat, food preferences, and rate of contaminant uptake among various fish, shellfish, and turtle species make comparison of contaminant monitoring results within a state or among states difficult unless the contaminant data are from the same species. It is virtually impossible to sample the same species at every site, within a state or region or nationally, due to the varying geographic distributions and environmental requirements of each species. However, a limited number of species can be identified that are distributed widely enough to allow for collection and comparison of contaminant data from many sites.
Three aims are achieved by using target species in screening studies. First, states can cost-effectively compare contaminant concentrations in their state waters and then prioritize sites where tissue contaminants exceed human health screening values. In this way, limited monitoring resources can be used to conduct intensive studies at sites exhibiting the highest degree of tissue contamination in screening studies. By resampling target species used in the screening study in Phase I intensive studies and sampling additional size classes and additi onal target species in Phase II intensive studies as resources allow, states can assess the magnitude and geographic extent of contamination in species of commercial, recreational, or subsistence value. Second, the use of common target species among states allows for more reliable comparison of sampling information. Such information allows states to design and evaluate their own contaminant monitoring programs more efficiently, which should further minimize overall monitoring costs. For example, monitoring by one state of fish tissue contamination levels in the upper reaches of a particular river can provide useful information to an adjacent state on tissue contamination levels that might be anticipated in the same target species at sampling sites downstream. Third, the use of a select group of target fish, shellfish, and freshwater turtle species will allow for the development of a national database for tracking the magnitude and**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-2 geographic extent of pollutant contamination in these target species nationwide and will permit analyses of trends in fish, shellfish, and turtle contamination over time.

**3.2 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING TARGET SPECIES**
The appropriate choice of target species is a key element of any chemical contaminant monitoring program. Criteria for selecting target species used in the following national fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs were reviewed by the 1993 EPA Fish Contaminant Workgroup to assess their applicability for use in selecting target species for state fish contaminant monitoring programs:
• National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA) • National Dioxin Study (U.S. EPA) • 301(h) Monitoring Program (U.S. EPA) • National Pesticide Monitoring Program (U.S. FWS) • National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (U.S. FWS) • National Status and Trends Program (NOAA). • National Water Quality Assessment Program (USGS).
The criteria used to select target species in many of these programs are similar although the priority given each criterion may vary depending on program aims.
According to the 1993 EPA Fish Contaminant Workgroup, the most important criterion for selecting target fish, shellfish, and turtle species for state contaminant monitoring programs assessing human consumption concerns was that the species were commonly consumed in the study area and were of commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing value. Two other criteria of major importance are that the species have the potential to bioaccumulate high concentrations of chemical contaminants and have a wide geographic distribution. EPA recommends that states use the same criteria to select species for both screening and intensive site-specific studies.
In addition to the three primary criteria for target species selection, it is also important that the target species be easy to identify taxonomically because there are significant species-specific differences in bioaccumulation potential. Because many closely related species can be similar in appearance, reliable taxonomic identification is essential to prevent mixing of closely related species with the target species. **Note:** Under no circumstance should individuals of more than one species be mixed to create a composite sample (U.S. EPA, 1991e). It is also both practical and cost-effective to sample target species that are abundant, easy to capture, and large enough to provide adequate tissue samples for chemical analyses.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-3 It cannot be overemphasized that final selection of target species will require the expertise of state fisheries biologists with knowledge of local species that best meet the selection criteria and knowledge of local human consumption patterns. Although, ideally, all fish, shellfish, or turtle species consumed from a given waterbody by the local population should be monitored, resource constraints may dictate that only a few of the most frequently consumed species be sampled.
In the next two sections, lists of recommended target species are provided for freshwater ecosystems (inland fresh waters and the Great Lakes) and estuarine/marine ecosystems (Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific waters), and the methods used to develop each list are discussed.

**3.3 FRESHWATER TARGET SPECIES**
As part of the two-tiered sampling strategy proposed for state fish contaminant monitoring programs, EPA recommends that states collect one bottom-feeding fish species and one predator fish species at each freshwater screening study site. Some suggested target species for use in state fish contaminant monitoring programs are shown in Table 3-1 for inland fresh waters and in Table 3-2 for Great Lakes waters.
The lists of target species recommended by the 1993 EPA Fish Contaminant Workgroup for freshwater ecosystems were developed based on a review of species used in the following national monitoring programs:

• National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA)

• National Dioxin Study (U.S. EPA)

• National Pesticide Monitoring Program (U.S. FWS)

• National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (U.S. FWS)

• National Water Quality Assessment Program (USGS)
and on a review of fish species cited in state fish consumption advisories or bans (RTI, 1993). Separate target species lists were developed for inland fresh waters (Table 3-1) and Great Lakes waters (Table 3-2) because of the distinct ecological characteristics of these waters and their fisheries. Each target species list has been reviewed by regional and state fisheries experts.
Use of two distinct ecological groups of finfish (i.e., bottom-feeders and predators) as target species in freshwater systems is recommended. This permits monitoring of a wide variety of habitats, feeding strategies, and physiological factors that might result in differences in bioaccumulation of contaminants. Bottom-feeding species may accumulate high contaminant concentrations from direct physical contact with contaminated sediment and/or by consuming benthic invertebrates and epibenthic organisms that live in contaminated sediment. Predator species are also good indicators of persistent pollutants (e.g., mercury or DDT and its metabolites) that may be biomagnified thr ough several tr ophic levels of the food web. Species used in several federal programs to assess the**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-4 **Table 3-1. Recommended Target Species for Inland Fresh Waters Family name**  **Common name Scientific name**  Percichthyidae White bass Morone chrysops
Centrarchidae Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Black crappie White crappie Micropterus salmoides Micropterus dolomieui Pomoxis nigromaculatus Pomoxis annularis
Percidae Walleye Yellow perch Stizostedion vitreum Perca flavescens Cyprinidae Common carp Cyprinus carpio
Catostomidae White sucker Catostomus commersoni
Ictaluridae Channel catfish Flathead catfish Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris
Esocidae Northern pike Esox lucius
Salmonidae Lake trout Brown trout Rainbow trout Salvelinus namaycush Salmo trutta Oncorhynchus mykiss a

a Formerly Salmo gairdneri

.

**Table 3-2. Recommended Target Species for Great Lakes Waters Family name**  **Common name Scientific name**  Percichthyidae White bass Morone chrysops Centrarchidae Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui
Percidae Walleye Stizostedion vitreum Cyprinidae Common carp Cyprinus carpio
Catostomidae White sucker Catostomus commersoni
Ictaluridae Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
Esocidae Muskellunge Esox masquinongy Salmonidae Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tschawytscha
Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush
Brown trout Salmo trutta
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss a

a Formerly Salmo gairdneri

.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-5 extent of freshwater fish tissue contamination nationwide are compared in Table 3-3.
In addition to finfish species, states should consider monitoring the tissues of freshwater turtles for environmental contaminants in areas where turtles are consumed by recreational, subsistence, or ethnic populations. Interest has been increasing in the potential transfer of environmental contami nants from the aquatic food chain to humans via consumption of freshwater turtles. Turtles may bioaccumulate environmental contaminants in their tissues from exposure to contaminated sediments or via consumption of contaminated prey. Because some turtle species are long-lived and occupy a medium to high trophic level of the food chain, they have the potential to accumulate high concentrations of chemical contaminants from their diets (Hebert et al., 1993). Some suggested target turtle species for use in state contaminant monitoring programs are listed in Table 3-4.
The list of target turtle species recommended for freshwater eco systems was developed based on a review of turtle species cited in state consumption advisories or bans (RTI, 1993) and a review of the recent scientific literature. The recommended target species list has been reviewed by regional and state experts.
**3.3.1 Target Finfish Species**
**3.3.1.1 Bottom-Feeding Species**
EPA recommends that, whenever practical, states use common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ), and white sucker ( Catostomus commersoni ) in that order as bottom-feeding target species in both inland fresh waters (Table 3-1) and in Great Lakes waters (Table 3-2). These bottom-feeders have been used consistently for monitoring a wide variety of contaminants including dioxins/furans (Crawford and Luoma, 1993; U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d; Versar Inc., 1984), organochlorine pesticides (Crawford and Luoma, 1993; Schmitt et al., 1983, 1985, 1990; U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d), and heavy metals (Crawford and Luoma, 1993; Lowe et al., 1985; May and McKi nney, 1981; Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990; U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). These three species are commonly consumed in the areas in which they occur and have also demonstrated an ability to accumulate high concentrations of environmental contaminants in their tissues as shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6. **Note:** The average contaminant concentrations shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 for fish collected for the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d) were derived from concentrations in fish from undisturbed areas and from areas expected to have elevated tissue contaminant concentrations. The mean contaminant concentrations shown, therefore, may be higher or lower than those f ound in the ambient environment because of site selection criteria used in this study.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-6 **U.S. EPA National**  **Dioxin Study U.S. FWS**  **NPMP and NCBP U.S. EPA**  **NSCRF USGS**  **NWQAP BOTTOM FEEDERS**  Family Cyprinidae Carp (Cyprinus carpio) ê ê êê Family Icataluridae Channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus) ê ê Or other ictalurid ê ê Family Catostomidae White sucker (Catastomus commersoni) ê ê Or other catostomid ê ê
Longnose sucker (C. catostromus) ê Largescale sucker (C.macrocheilus) Spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops) ê Redhorse sucker (Moxostoma sp.) included variety of species: Silver redhorse (M. anisurum) Grey redhorse (M. congetum) Black redhorse (M. duquesnei) Golden redhorse (M. erythrurum) Shorthead redhorse (M. macrolepidotum) Blacktail redhorse (M. poecilurum) ê

**PREDATORS** Family Salmoridae Rainbow trout (Oncortynchus mykiss) [formerly Salmo gairdneni] Brown trout (Salmo trutta) ê
ê ê
ê êê Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) êê ê Lake trout (Salmo namaycush) ê ê Family Percidae Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) ê Or other pericid ê Or other pericid ê
Sauger (Stizostedion canadense)   Yellow perch (Perca flavescans)   Family Percichthyidae White bass (Morone chrysops) ê Family Centrarchidae Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) ê Or other centrarchid ê Or other centrarchid ê ê

Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) ê Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)   White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)  ê Bluegill sunfish (Lepornis macrochirus)  ê Family Esocidae Northern pike (Esox lucius) ê Family Ictaluridae Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) ê

ê Recommended target species  Alternate target species
NPMP = National Pesticide Monitoring Program NCBP = National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program NSCRF = National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish NWQAP = National Water Quality Assessment Program
Sources: Versar, Inc., 1984; Schmitt et al., 1990; Schmitt et al., 1983; May and McKinney, 1981; U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d; Crawford and Luoma, 1993. **Table 3-3. Comparison of Freshwater Finfish Species Used in Several National Fish Contaminant Monitoring Programs** **3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-7 **Table 3-4. Freshwater Turtles Recommended for Use as Target Species Family name**  **Common name Scientific name**  Chelydridae Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina Emydidae Yellow-bellied turtle Red-eared turtle River cooter Suwanee cooter Slider Texas slider Florida cooter Peninsula cooter Trachemys scripta scripta Trachemys scripta elegans Pseudemys concinna concinna Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis Pseudemys concinna hieroglyphica Pseudemys concinna texana Pseudemys floridana floridana Pseudemys floridana penisularis Trionychidae Smooth softshell Eastern spiny softshell Western spiny softshell Gulf Coast spiny softshell Florida softshell Apalone muticus Apalone spinifera spinifera Apalone spinifera hartwegi Apalone spinifera aspera Apalone ferox

In addition, these three species are relatively widely distributed throughout the continental United States, and numerous states are already sampling these species in their contaminant monitoring programs. A review of the database National Listing of State Fish and Shellfish Consumption Advisories and Bans (RTI, 1993) indicated that the largest number of states issuing advisories for specific bottom-feeding species did so for carp (21 states) and channel catfish (22 states), with eight states issuing advisories for white suckers (see Table 3-7). Appendix D lists the freshwater fish species cited in consumption advisories for each state as of 1998.
**3.3.1.2 Predator Species**
EPA recommends that, w henever practical, states use predator target species listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for inland fresh waters and Great Lakes waters, respectively. Predator species, because of their more definitive habitat and water temperature preferences, generally have a more limited geographic distribution. Thus, a greater number of predator species than bottom feeders have been used in national contaminant monitoring programs (Table 3-3) and these are recommended for use as target species in freshwater ecosystems. Predator fish that prefer relatively cold freshwater habitats include many members of the following families: Salmonidae (trout and salmon), Percidae (walleye and yellow perch), and Esocidae (northern pike and muskellunge). Members of the Centrarchidae (large- and smallmouth bass, cr appie, and sunfish), Percichthyidae (white bass), and Ictaluridae (flathead catfish) families prefer relatively warm water habitats. Only two predator species (brown trout and largemouth bass) were used in all four of the national monitoring programs reviewed by the 1993 EPA Fish Contaminant Workgroup (Table 3-3). However, most of the other predator species recommended as target species have been used in at least one national monitoring program. To identify those predator species with a known ability to bioaccumulate contaminants in their tissues, the 1993 EPA Workgroup reviewed average tissue concentrations of xenobiotic contaminants for major**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-8**Table 3-5. Average Fish Tissue Concentrations (ppb) of Xenobiotics for Major Finfish Species Sampled in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish** **a Fish Species** **Alpha- BHC** **Gamma- BHC Biphenyl Chlorpyrifos Dicofol Dieldrin Endrin** **Heptachlor epoxide Mercury Mirex** **Oxychlor- dane PCBs** **Bottom Feeders b** Carp3.10 4.34 4.388.23 0.88 44.75 1.40 4.00 0.11 3.70 8.20 2941.13White sucker 3.31 1.66 1.281.75 0.48 22.75 0.24 1.09 0.11 4.35 3.10 1697.81Channel cat2.87 3.17 1.246.97 0.59 15.44 9.07 0.50 0.09 14.59 6.41 1300.52Redhorse sucker 0.82 0.41 1.250.35 ND 5.35 0.97 ND0.27 0.57 2.37 487.72Spotted sucker 1.45 2.63 3.350.56 0.05 5.52 NDND0.12 1.79 0.05 133.90**Predators b** Largemouth bass 0.15 0.07 0.380.23 0.20 5.01 ND 0.30 0.46 0.21 0.47 232.26Smallmouth bass 0.36 0.15 0.330.08 ND 2.34 ND 0.07 0.34 1.99 0.54 496.22WalleyeND ND0.400.04 ND 3.73 ND 0.21 0.51 0.08 1.11 368.65Brown trout1.59 ND0.81ND0.94 20.13 ND 2.08 0.14 43.98 5.38 2434.07White bass0.34 0.79 0.621.32 ND 9.35 ND 1.40 0.35 0.11 0.84 288.35Northern pike 0.55 ND0.59 11.43 0.31 9.04 NDND0.34 2.39 4.00 788.40Flathead cat0.92 0.58 0.60 22.57 1.28 37.38 3.45 0.57 0.27 ND 0.63 521.19White crappie 0.23 ND0.21NDND ND NDND0.22 ND ND 22.34Bluefish0.38 0.12 0.20NDND 2.87 NDND0.22 0.13 ND 368.06**Fish Species Penta** **chloro anisole** **Penta- chloro-** **benzene DDE Total** **Chlordane Total** **Nonachlor 123 TCB 124 TCB 135 TCB 1234 TECB Trifluralin Hexa-** **chloro- benzene** **Bottom Feeders b** Carp16.50 1.04 415.43 67.15 63.15 1.54 4.77 0.08 0.30 12.55 3.58White sucker9.06 0.39 78.39 18.43 20.83 0.16 0.30 0.14 0.15 ND 3.62Channel cat39.60 1.32 627.77 54.39 66.28 0.14 0.37 ND 0.88 1.00 2.36Redhorse sucker 2.87 0.02 87.25 16.48 30.73 0.55 6.48 0.08 0.09 ND 0.58Spotted sucker17.68 0.02 75.31 12.33 15.00 3.34 12.00 1.00 0.09 ND 0.02**Predators b** Largemouth bass 0.57 0.02 55.72 2.894.21 0.22 0.19 0.03 0.01 ND 0.20Smallmouth bass 0.23 0.02 33.63 4.017.82 0.70 0.59 0.04 0.04 ND 0.36Walleye0.76 ND 34.00 3.628.04 0.29 0.38 ND 0.004 ND 0.11Brown trout0.09 0.60 158.90 7.2532.60 1.10 0.98 ND 0.09 ND 3.06White bass0.93 ND 17.44 10.67 16.00 0.21 0.10 ND 0.01 ND 0.83Northern pike1.51 0.09 59.50 5.4513.88 0.30 0.23 ND 0.01 ND 0.20Flathead catfish0.31 ND 755.18 16.07 14.04 0.10 0.18 ND ND 44.37 0.85White crappie0.33 ND 10.04 0.340.28 0.08 0.08 0.08 ND ND NDBluefish0.05 ND 29.13 2.742.56 6.25 4.66 4.66 ND ND NDaThese average fish tissue concentrations may be higher or lower than those found in the ambient environment because of site selection criteria used in this study.bValues were calculated using whole-body samples for bottom feeders and fillet samples for predators. Individual values below detection limit were set at zero. Asterisk indicates allvalues below the detection limit. Units = ppb, (μg/g) wet weight basis. ND = Not detected.Source: US. EPA, 1991h.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-9**Table 3-6. Average Fish Tissue Concentrations (ppt) of Dioxins and Furans for Major Finfish Species Sampled in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish** **a Fish Species** **2378 TCDD** **12378 PeCDD** **123478 HxCDD** **123678 HxCDD** **123789 HxCDD** **1234678 HpCDD** **2378 TCDF** **12378 PeCDF** **23478 PeCDF** **123478 HxCDF** **123678 HxCDF** **123789 HxCDF** **234678 HxCDF** **1234678 HpCDF** **1234789 HpCDF TEQ** **Bottom Feeders b** Carp7.76 3.63 2.16 6.81 1.54 22.29 10.15 1.31 4.01 2.54 1.91 1.16 1.20 2.49 1.22 13.06White sucker 8.08 2.05 1.03 1.96 0.88 3.72 22.89 1.10 2.64 2.21 1.29 1.06 1.09 1.23 1.13 12.79Channel catfish 11.56 2.37 1.61 5.62 1.29 9.40 2.22 0.52 2.91 2.41 1.41 1.38* 1.62 2.55 1.26 14.80Redhorse sucker 4.65 1.50 1.40 2.36 0.84 4.94 30.09 0.75 1.28 2.10 1.16 1.19* 1.50 1.57 1.36* 9.22Spotted sucker 1.73 2.34 1.70 12.08 1.14 17.48 7.49 2.12 2.06 2.22 1.79 1.28* 1.78 1.77 1.08 6.23**Predators b** Largemouth bass 1.73 0.59 1.12 1.28 0.64 2.48 2.18 0.37 0.47 1.24 1.23 1.21* 0.88 0.82 1.21* 1.91Smallmouth bass 0.72 0.50* 1.13* 0.79 0.64* 0.67 1.93 0.36* 0.51 1.28 1.23 1.26* 0.89* 0.69 1.30* 0.65*Walleye 0.88 0.54* 0.99* 0.73 0.62* 0.88 1.83 0.35* 0.38 1.04 1.09* 1.07* 0.75 0.74 1.21* 0.79*Brown trout 2.52 1.01 1.07* 0.98 0.68* 1.18 3.74 0.60 1.36 1.47 1.12* 1.09* 0.94* 0.67* 1.16* 3.31White bass 3.00 0.66 1.05* 0.78 0.61* 1.01 5.07 0.40 0.49 1.04 1.16* 1.13* 0.81* 0.63 1.17* 3.44Northern pike 0.77 0.46* 1.23* 0.91 0.69* 0.73 1.01 0.44 0.66 1.41* 1.42* 1.38* 0.98* 0.56 1.30* 0.66Flathead cat 0.78 0.43 0.90 1.06 0.50 1.67 1.63 0.40 0.56 1.05 1.20* 1.17* 0.61* 0.56 1.10* 0.99White crappie 2.13 0.60 1.29* 1.03* 0.83* 1.33 10.46 0.54 0.67 1.33* 1.33* 1.30* 0.95* 0.96* 1.34* 3.80Bluefish 0.85 0.56 1.23* 0.98* 0.69* 0.65 2.11 0.41 0.59 1.42* 1.42* 1.39* 0.98* 0.72* 1.31* 1.41aThese average fish tissue concentrations may be higher or lower than those found in the ambient environment because of site selection criteria used in this study.bValues were calculated using whole-body samples for bottom feeders and fillet samples for predators. Values below detection limit have been replaced by one-half detection limit forthe given sample. Asterisk indicates all values below detection limit. Units = ppt (pg/g) wet weight basis.TEQ = Toxicity equivalency was based on TEF-89 toxicity weighting values; however, octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and octachlorodibenzofurans were not analyzed; therefore, the TEQvalue does not include these two compounds.Source: U.S. EPA, 1991h.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-10 predator fish species sampled in the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Unlike the bottom feeders (common carp, channel catfish, and white suckers), no single predator species or group of predator species consistently exhibited the highest tissue concentrations for the contaminants analyzed (Tables 3-5 and 3-6). However, average fish tissue concentrations for some contaminants (i.e., mercury, mirex, chlorpyrifos, DDE, 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene [123-TCB], and trifluralin) were higher for some predator species than for the bottom feeders despite the fact that only the fillet portion rather than the whole body was analyzed for predator species. This finding emphasizes the need for using two types of fish (i.e., bottom feeders and predators) with different habitat and feeding strategies as target species.
The existence of fish consumption advisories for these predator target species was further justification for their recommended use. As was shown for the bottom-feeder target species, states were already sampling the recomm ended predator target species listed in Table 3-7. The largest number of states issuing advisories in 1993 for specific predator species did so for largemouth bass (15), lake trout (10), white bass (10), smallmouth bass (9), brown trout (9), walleye (9), rainbow trout (8), yellow perch (8), chinook salmon (7), northern pike (7), black crappie (5), flathead catfish (4), and muskellunge (4) (RTI, 1993). For comparison, the number of states reporting advisories for each species in 1998 is also presented in Table 3-7.
Because some freshwater finfish species (e.g., several Great Lake salmonids) are highly migratory, harvesting of these species may be restricted to certain seasons because sexually mature adult fish (i.e., the recommended size for sampling) maymake spawning runs from the Great Lakes into tributary streams. EPA recommends that spawning populations not be sampled in fish contaminant monitoring programs. Sampling of target finfish species during their spawning period should be avoided because contaminant tissue concentrations may decrease during this time (Phillips, 1980) and because the spawning period is generally outside the legal harvest period. **Note:** Target finfish may be sampled during their spawning period, however, if the species can be legally harvested at this time.
State personnel, with their knowledge of site-specific fisheries and human consumption patterns, must be the ultimate judge of the species selected for use in freshwater fish contaminant monitoring programs within their jurisdiction.
**3.3.2 Target Turtle Species**
EPA recommends that states in which freshwater turtles are consumed by recreational, subsistence, or ethnic populations consider monitoring turtles to assess the level of environmental contamination and whether they pose a human health risk. In all cases, the primary criterion for selecting the target turtle species is whether it is commonly consumed. To identify those turtle species with a known ability to bioaccumulate contaminants in their tissues, the 1993 EPA Workgroup reviewed turtle species cited in state consumption advisories and those species identified**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-11 **Table 3-7. Principal Freshwater Fish Species Cited in State Fish Consumption Advisories**  **a**

**Family name Common name Scientific name Number of states with advisories**  **b**
**1993 1998**  Percichthyidae **White bass** Striped bass White perch **Morone chrysops** Morone saxatilis Morone americana **10** 6 4 **17** 12 7
Centrarchidae **Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass**  **Black crappie White crappie**  Bluegill sunfish Rock bass **Micropterus salmoides Micropterus dolomieui**  **Pomoxis nigromaculatus Pomoxis annularis**  Lepomis macrochirus Ambloplites rupestris **15 9**  **5** 2 5 3 **33 18**  **18** 11 11 5
Percidae **Yellow perch Sauger**  **Walleye Perca flavescens**  Stizostedion canadense Stizostedion vitreum **8** 4 9 **12** 9 12 Cyprinidae **Common carp Cyprinus carpio**  **21 25**  Acipenseridae Shovelnose sturgeon Lake sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Acipenser fulvescens 1 2 3 3
Catostomidae Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Shorthead redhorse **White sucker** Quillback carpsucker Ictiobus bubalus Ictiobus cyprinellus Moxostoma macrolepidotum **Catostomus commersoni** Carpiodes cyprinus 4 4 2 **8** 2 5 6 3 **11** 5
Ictaluridae White catfish **Channel catfish Flathead catfish**  Black bullhead Brown bullhead Yellow bullhead Ictalurus catus **Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris**  Ictalurus melas Ictalurus nebulosus Ictalurus natalis **5 22**  **4** 2 7 2 **6 26**  **11** 3 10 8
Sciaenidae Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens 31 3
Esocidae **Northern pike Muskellunge**  **Esox lucius Esox masquinongy**  **7 4**  **10 4** 
Salmonidae Coho salmon **Chinook salmon Brown trout**  **Lake trout Rainbow trout**  Brook trout Lake whitefish Oncorhynchus kisutch **Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Salmo trutta**  **Salvelinus namaycush** Oncorhynchus mykiss c Salvelinus fontinalis Coregonus clupea formis 6 **7 9**  **10 8**  3 2 8 **7 11**  **12 12**  4 7 Anguillidae American eel Anguilla rostrata 6 7

a Species in boldface are EPA-recommended target species for inland fresh waters (see Table 3-1) and the Great

Lakes waters (Table 3-2). b Many states did not identify individual species of finfish in their advisories.

c Formerly Salmo gairdneri.

Sources: RTI, 1993; U.S. EPA, 1999c (NLFWA).**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-12 **Figure 3-1. Geographic range of the common snapping turtle (**  **Chelydra serpentina ).** in the scientific literature as having accumulated high concentrations of environmental contaminants.

Based on information in state advisories and a number of environmental studies using turtles as biological indicators of pollution, one species stands out as an obvious choice for a target species, the common snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina ). This turtle has been recommended by several researchers as an important bioindicator species (Bishop et al., 1996; Bonin et al., 1995; Olafsson et al., 1983; Stone et al., 1980) and has the widest geographic distribution of any of the North American aquatic turtles (see Figure 3-1). In addition, this species is highly edible, easily identified, easily collected, long-lived (>20 years), grows to a large size, and has been extensively studied with respect to a variety of environmental contaminants. Other turtle species that should be considered for use as target species are listed in Table 3-4.

Four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York) currently have consumption advisories in force for various turtle species (U.S. EPA, 1999c; New York State Department of Health, 1994). The species cited in the state advisories and the pollutants i dentified in turtle tissues as exceeding acceptable levels of contamination with respect to human health are listed in Table 3-8. New York**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-13 **Table 3-8. Principal Freshwater Turtle Species Cited in State Consumption Advisories**

**Family name Common name**  **Scientific name Pollutant State** Chelydridae Snapping turtle a Chelydra serpentina Mercury MN Snapping turtle a (and other unspecified turtle species) Chelydra serpentina PCBs MA

Snapping turtle b Chelydra serpentina PCBs NY Trionychidae Western spiny softshell a Apalone spiniferus DDT toxaphene, chlordane,

dieldrin AZ

PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls. DDT = 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2 bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane.

a Source: U.S. EPA 1999c (NLFWA). b Source: New York State Department of Health, 1994. state has a statewide advisory directed specifically at women of childbearing age and children under 15 and advises these groups to avoid eating snapping turtles altogether. The advisory also recommends that members of the general population who wish to consume turtle meat should trim away all fat and discard the liver tissue and eggs of the turtles prior to cooking the meat or preparing other dishes. These three tissues (fat, liver, and eggs) have been shown to accumulate extremely high concentrations of a variety of environmental contaminants in comparison to muscle tissue (Bishop et al., 1996; Bonin et al., 1995; Bryan et al., 1987; Hebert et al., 1993; Olafsson et al 1983; 1987; Ryan et al., 1986; Stone et al., 1980). The Minnesota advisory also recommends that consumers remove all fat from turtle meat prior to cooking as a risk-reducing strategy (Minnesota Department of Health, 1994). States should consider monitoring pollutant concentrations in all three tissues (fat, liver, and eggs) in addition to muscle tissue if resources allow. If residue analysis reveals the presence of high concentrations of any environmental contaminant of concern, the state should consider making the general recommendation to consumers to discard these three highly lipophilic tissues (fat, liver, and eggs) to reduce the risk of exposure particularly to many organic chemical contaminants.
To identify those freshwater turtle species with a known ability to bioaccumulate chemical contaminants in their tissues, several studies were reviewed that identified freshwater turtle species as useful biomonitors of PCBs (Bishop et al., 1996; Bonin et al., 1995; Bryan et al., 1987; Hebert et al., 1993; Helwig and Hora, 1983; Olafsson et al., 1983; 1987; Safe, 1985; and Stone et al., 1980), dioxins and dibenzofurans (Bis hop et al., 1996; Rappe et al., 1981; Ryan et al., 1986), organochlorine pesticides (Bishop et al., 1996; Bonin et al., 1995; Hebert et al., 1993; Stone et al., 1980), heavy metals (Bonin et al., 1995; Helwig and Hora, 1983; Stone et al., 1980), and radioactive nuclides (cesium-137 and strontium-90) (Lamb et al., 1991; Scott et al., 1986). The turtle species used in these studies, the pollutants monitored, and the reference sources are summarized in Table 3-9.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-14 **Table 3-9. Studies Using Freshwater Turtles as Biomonitors of Environmental Contamination**  **Species Pollutant monitored**  **Source** Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) PCBs, total DDT, mirex Hebert et al., 1993

Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) PCBs Olafsson et al., 1987 Olafsson et al., 1983 Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) PCBs Safe, 1987

Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) PCBs Bryan et al., 1987

Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) Dioxins/Furans Ryan et al., 1986

Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) PCBs, mercury, cadmium Helwig and Hora, 1983

Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) Furans Rappe et al., 1981

Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) Organochlorine pesticides (DDE, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, heptachlor epoxide, mirex), PCBs, cadmium, mercury Stone et al., 1980

Snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina) 29 Organochlorine pesticides, 39 PCB congeners, mercury Bonin et al., 1995

Snapping turtle eggs 4 Organochlorine pesticides(DDE, dieldrin, mirex, hexachlorobenzene), PCBs, dioxins/furans Bishop et al., 1996

Yellow-bellied turtle ( Trachemys scripta) Cesium-137 Strontium-90 Lamb et al., 1991

Yellow-bellied turtle ( Trachemys scripta) Cesium-137 Strontium-90 Scott et al., 1986

PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls. DDT = 1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2 bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane. DDE = 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethylene.

State personnel, with their knowledge of site-specific fisheries and human consumption patterns, must be the ultimate judge of the turtle species selected for use in contaminant monitoring programs within their jurisdictions. Because several turtle species are becoming less common as a result of habitat loss or degradation or overharvesting, biologists need to ensure that the target species selected for the state toxics monitoring program is not of special concern within their jurisdiction or designated as a threatened or endangered species. For example, two highly edible turtle species, the Alligator snapping turtle ( Macroclemys temmincki ) and the Northern diamondback terrapin ( Malaclemys terrapin terrapin ) are protected in some states or designated as species of concern within portions of their geographic range and are also potential candidates for federal protection (Sloan and Lovich, 1995). Although protected to varying degrees by several states, George (1987) and Pritchard (1989) concluded that the Alligator snapping turtle should receive range-wide protection**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-15 from the federal government as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, basic ecological and life history information necessary to make environmental management decisions (i.e., federal listing as endangered or threatened species) is often not available for turtles and other reptiles (Gibbons, 1988).
Several species of freshwater turtles already have been designated as endangered or threatened species in the United States including the Bog turtle ( Clemmys muhlenbergii ), Plymouth red-bellied turtle ( Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi ), Alabama red-bellied turtle ( Pseudemys alabamensis ), Flattened musk turtle ( Stemotherus depressus ), Ringed map (=sawback) turtle ( Graptemys oculifera ), and the Yellow-blotched map (=sawback) turtle ( Graptemys flavimaculata ) (U.S. EPA, 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994). In addition, all species of marine sea turtles including the Green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ), Hawksbill sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), Kemp ’ s ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), Olive ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys olivacea ), Loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ), and the Leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) have been designated as endangered (U.S. EPA, 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994).

**3.4 ESTUARINE/MARINE TARGET SPECIES**

EPA recommends that states collect **either** one shellfish species (preferably a bivalve mollusc) and one finfish species **or** two finfish species at each estuarine/marine screening site. In all cases, the primary criterion for selecting the target species is that it is commonly consumed. Ideally, one shellfish species and one finfish species should be sampled; however, if no shellfish species from the recommended target species list meets the primary criterion, EPA recommends that states use two finfish species selected from the appropriate regional estuarine/marine target species lists. If two finfish are selected as the target species, one should be a bottom-feeding species.
EPA recommends that, w henever practical, states use target species selected from fish and shellfish species identified in Tables 3-10 through 3-16 for the following specific estuarine/marine coastal areas:

• Northeast Atlantic region (Maine through Connecticut)

— Table 3-10

• Mid-Atlantic region (New York through Virginia)

— Table 3-11

• Southeast Atlantic region (North Carolina through Florida)

— Table 3-12

• Gulf Coast region (west coast of Florida through Texas)

— Table 3-13

• Pacific Northwest region (Alaska through Oregon)

— Table 3-14

• Northern California waters (Klamath River through Morro Bay)

— Table 3-15

• Southern California waters (Santa Monica Bay to Tijuana Estuary)

— Table 3-16.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-16 **Table 3-10. Recommended Target Species for Northeast Atlantic Estuaries and Marine Waters (Maine through Connecticut)**  **Family name Common name**  **Scientific name Finfish Species**  Anguillidae American eel Anguilla rostrata Percichthyidae Striped bass Morone saxatilis
Pomatomidae Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Sparidae Scup Stenotomus chrysops
Sciaenidae Weakfish Cynoscion regalis
Bothidae Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus Four-spotted flounder Paralichthys oblongus
Pleuronectidae Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea
American dab Hippoglossoides platessoides **Shellfish Species** Bivalves Soft-shell clam Mya arenaria Mercenaria mercenaria Arctica islandica Spisula solidissima Mytilus edulis
Crustaceans American lobster Eastern rock crab Homarus americanus Cancer irroratus**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-17 **Table 3-11. Recommended Target Species for Mid-Atlantic**

**Estuaries and Marine Waters (New York through Virginia) Family name**  **Common name Scientific name**  **Finfish Species** Anguillidae American eel Anguilla rostrata
Ictaluridae Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
White catfish Ictalurus catus Percichthyidae White perch Morone americana Striped bass Morone saxatilis
Pomatomidae Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Sparidae Scup Stenotomus chrysops
Sciaenidae Weakfish Cynoscion regalis Spot Leistomus xanthurus
Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus
Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus

Bothidae Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus
Pleuronectidae Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus **Shellfish Species**

Bivalves Hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria
Soft-shell clam Mya arenaria Ocean quahog Arctica islandica
Surf clam Spisula solidissima

Blue mussel Mytilus edulis American oyster Crassostrea virginica
Crustaceans Blue crab Callinectes sapidus

American lobster Homarus americanus
Eastern rock crab Cancer irroratus**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-18 **Table 3-12. Recommended Target Species for Southeast Atlantic Estuaries and Marine Waters (North Carolina through Florida)** 

**Family name Common name**  **Scientific name Finfish Species**  Anguillidae American eel Anguilla rostrata
Ictaluridae Channel catfish White catfish Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus catus Percichthyidae White perch Striped bass Morone americana Morone saxatilis
Sciaenidae Spot Leistomus xanthurus
Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus
Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus

Bothidae Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma
Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus **Shellfish Species**

Bivalves Hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria American oyster Crassostrea virginica
Crustaceans West Indies spiny lobster Panulirus argus
Blue crab Callinectes sapidus**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-19 **Table 3-13. Recommended Target Species for Gulf of Mexico Estuaries and Marine Waters (West Coast of Florida through Texas)**  **Family name Common name**  **Scientific name Finfish Species** 
Ictaluridae Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
Ariidae Hardhead catfish Arius felis
Sciaenidae Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus Spot Leistomus xanthurus
Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus
Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus
Bothidae Gulf flounder Paralichthys albigutta
Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma **Shellfish Species**
Bivalves American oyster Crassostrea virginica
Hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria
Crustaceans White shrimp Penaeus setiferus
Blue crab Callinectes sapidus
Gulf stone crab Menippe adina West Indies spiny lobster Panulirus argus**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-20 **Table 3-14. Recommended Target Species for Pacific Northwest Estuaries and Marine Waters (Alaska through Oregon)**  **Family name Common name**  **Scientific name Finfish Species** 
Embiotocidae Redtail Surfperch Amphistichus rhodoterus Scorpaenidae Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus
Black rockfish Sebastes melanops
Bothidae Speckled sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus
Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus
Pleuronectidae Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus English sole Parophrys vetulus
Salmonidae Coho salmon Onchorhynchus kisutch
Chinook salmon Onchorhynchus tshawytscha **Shellfish Species**
Bivalves Blue mussel Mytilus edulis
California mussel Mytilus californianus Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas
Horseneck clam Tresus capax
Pacific littleneck clam Protothaca staminea
Soft-shell clam Mya arenaria
Manila clam Venerupis japonica
Crustaceans Dungeness crab Cancer magister
Red crab Cancer productus**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-21 **Table 3-15. Recommended Target Species for Northern California**

**Estuaries and Marine Waters (Klamath River through Morro Bay) Family name**  **Common name Scientific name**  **Finfish Species**

Triakidae Leopard shark Triakis semifasciata
Sciaenidae White croaker Genyonemus lineatus

Embiotocidae Redtailed surfperch Amphistichus rhodoterus Striped seaperch Embiotoca lateralis Scorpaenidae Black rockfish Sebastes melanops
Yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus

Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis

Bothidae Pacific sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Speckled sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus

Pleuronectidae Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus English sole Parophrys vetulus
Salmonidae Coho salmon Onchorhynchus kisutch
Chinook salmon Onchorhynchus tshawytscha **Shellfish Species**

Bivalves Blue mussel Mytilus edulis
California mussel Mytilus californianus
Pacific littleneck clam Protothaca staminea
Soft-shell clam Mya arenaria
Crustaceans Dungeness crab Cancer magister

Red crab Cancer productus
Pacific rock crab Cancer antennarius**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-22 **Table 3-16. Recommended Target Species for Southern California Estuaries and Marine Waters (Santa Monica Bay to Tijuana Estuary)**  **Family name Common name**  **Scientific name Finfish Species** 
Serranidae Kelp bass Paralabrax clathratus
Barred sand bass Paralabrax nebulifer
Sciaenidae White croaker Genyonemus lineatus
Corbina Menticirrhus undulatus
Embiotocidae Black perch Embiotoca jacksoni Walleye surf perch Hyperprosopan argenteum Barred surfperch Amphistichus argenteus Scorpaenidae California scorpionfish Scorpaena guttata
Widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas
Blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus
Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis
Pleuronectidae Diamond turbot Hypsopetta guttulata
Dover sole Microstomus pacificus **Shellfish Species**
Bivalves Blue mussel Mytilus edulis
California mussel Mytilus californianus
Pacific littleneck clam Protothaca staminea
Crustaceans Pacific rock crab Cancer antennarius
Red crab Cancer productus
California rock lobster Panulirus interruptus

The seven separate regional lists of target species recommended by the 1993 EPA Workgroup for estuarine/marine ecosystems were developed because of differences in species ’ geographic distribution and abundance and the nature of the regional fisheries and were developed based on a review of species used in the following national monitoring programs:

• National Dioxin Study (U.S. EPA)

• Section 301(h) Monitoring Program (U.S. EPA)

• National Status and Trends Program (NOAA)

• National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA).
Because some of these programs identified some fish and shellfish species that are not of commercial, sportfishing, or subsistence value, several additional literature sources identifying commercial and sportfishing species were also**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-23 reviewed (Table 3-17). Some sources included information on seasonal distribution and abundance of various life stages (i.e., adults, spawning adults, juveniles) of fish and shellfish species. This information was useful in delineating seven regional estuarine/marine areas nationwide. The 1993 EPA Workgroup also reviewed fish and shellfish species cited in state consumption advisories for estuarine/marine waters (Appendix D). Each of the final regional lists of target species has been reviewed by state, regional, and national fisheries experts.
Use of two distinct ecological groups of organisms (shellfish and finfish) as target species in estuarine/marine systems is recommended. This permits monitoring of a wide variety of habitats, feeding strategies, and physiological factors that might result in differences in bioaccumulation of contaminants. Estuarine/marine species used in several national contaminant monitoring programs reviewed by the 1993 EPA Workgroup are compared in Table 3-18.
**3.4.1 Target Shellfish Species**
Selection of shellfish species (particularly bivalve molluscs) as target species received primary consideration by the 1993 EPA Workgroup because of the commercial, recreational, and subsistence value of shellfish in many coastal areas of the United States. Bivalve molluscs (e.g., oysters, mussels, and clams) are filter feeders that accumulate contaminants directly from the water column or via ingestion of contaminants adsorbed to phytoplankton, detritus, and sediment particles. Bivalves are good bioaccumulators of heavy metals (Cunningham, 1979) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other organic compounds (Phillips, 1980; NOAA, 1987) and, because they are sessile, they may reflect local contaminant concentrations more accurately than more mobile crustacean or finfish species.
Three bivalve species

— the blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ), the California mussel ( Mytilus californianus ), and the American oyster ( Crassostrea virginica )

— were recommended and/or used in three of the national monitoring programs reviewed by the 1993 EPA Workgroup. Two other bivalve species

— the soft-shell clam ( Mya arenaria ) and the Pacific oyster ( Crassostrea gigas )

— were also recommended and/or used in two national programs. Although no bivalve species was identified by name in state fish and shellfish consumption advisories (Appendix D), seven coastal states issued advisories in 1993 for unspecified bivalves or shellfish species that may have included these and other bivalve species. All three species are known to bioaccumulate a variety of environmental contaminants (Phillips, 1988). The wide distribution of these three species makes them useful for comparison within a state or between states sharing coastal waters (Figure 3-2). Because these three species met all of the selection criteria, they were recommended as target species for use in geographic areas in which they occur.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-24 **Table 3-17. Sources of Information on Commercial and Sportfishing Species in Various Coastal Areas of the United States**  **Geographic area Source** 
Atlantic Coast National Marine Fisheries Service. 1987. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1986. Current Fishery Statistics Number 8392. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Leonard, D.L., M.A. Broutman, and K.E. Harkness. 1989. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast of the United States. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, and L. Coston-Clements. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Southeast Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 9. Strategic Assessment Division. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Stone, S.L., T.A. Lowery, J.D. Field, C.D. Williams, D.M. Nelson, S.H. Jury, M.E. Monaco, and L. Andreasen. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Mid-Altantic Estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 12. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, SIlver Spring, MD. Jury, S.H., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in North Atlantic Estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 13. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, SIlver Spring, MD.
Gulf Coast National Marine Fisheries Service. 1987. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1986. Current Fishery Statistics Number 8392. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Broutman, M.A., and D.L. Leonard. 1988. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. Monaco, M.E., D.M. Nelson, T.C. Czapla, and M.E. Patillo. 1989. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Texas Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 3. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Williams, C.D., D.M. Nelson, M.E. Monaco, S.L. Stone, C. Iancu, L. Coston-Clements, L.R. Settle, and E.A. Irlandi. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Eastern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 6. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Czapla, T.C., M.E. Patillo, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Central Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 7. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Nelson, D.M. (editor). 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries, Volume I: Data Summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 10. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, MD. Patillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Vol. II: Species Life History Summaries . ELMR Rep. No. 14. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD.
West Coast National Marine Fisheries Service. 1987. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Pacific Coast, 1986. Current Fishery Statistics Number 8393. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Leonard, D.L., and E.A. Slaughter. 1990. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the West Coast of the United States. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD. Monaco, M.E., D.M. Nelson, R.L. Emmett, and S.A. Hinton. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries. Volume I: Data Summaries. ELMR Report No. 4. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. Emmett, R.L., S.A. Hinton, S.L. Stone, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries. Volume II: Life History Summaries. ELMR Report No. 8. Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, Rockville, MD.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-25 **U.S. EPA National**  **Dioxin Study a**  **NOAA Status and** 

**Trends U.S. EPA**  **301(h) Program**  **U.S. EPA NSCRF**  **b FINFISH**  Family Acipenseridae White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) ê Family Ariidae Hardhead catfish (Arius felis) ê Family Percichthyidae White perch (Morone americana) ê Family Pomatomidae Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) ê Family Lutjanidae Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) ê Family Sparidae Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) ê Family (Sciaenidae) Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) White croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) Atlantic craoker ( Micropogonias undulatus ) Black drum (Pogonias cromis) Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) ê ê ê ê ê ê ê

ê ê ê Family Serranidae Barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer) ê Family Mugilidae Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) ê Family Bothidae Southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) ê Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) ê Family Pleuronectidae Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus) Flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon) Diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guttulata) Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) Hornyhead turbot (Pleuronichthys verticalis) Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) English sole (Parophrys vetulus) Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus) ê ê ê ê ê ê ê

ê ê ê ê

ê

ê

See notes at end of table. (continued) **Table 3-18. Estuarine/Marine Species Used in Several National Fish and Shellfish Contaminant Monitoring Programs** **3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-26 **Table 3-18. (continued)**

**U.S. EPA National**  **Dioxin Study a**  **NOAA Status and** 

**Trends U.S. EPA**  **301(h) Program**  **U.S. EPA NSCRF**  **b SHELLFISH**  **Bivalves** Hard clam (Mercenaria mercanaria) Soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) Ocean quahog (Arctica islandia) Surf clam (Spisula solidissima) Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) California mussel (Mytilus californianus) American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Hawaiian oyster (Ostrea sandwichensis) Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Bent-nosed macoma (Macoma nasuta) Baltic macoma (Macoma baltica) White sand macoma (Macoma secta) ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê

ê ê ê ê ê

ê

**Crustaceans** American lobster (Homarus americanus) West Indies spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) California rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus) Hawaiian spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus) Eastern rock crab (Cancer irroratus) Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) Pacific rock crab (Cancer antennarius) Yellow crab (Cancer anthonyi) Red crab (Cancer productus) ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê ê

NSCRF = National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish.

a Only freshwater finfish were identified as target species; bivalves were identified as estuarine/marine target species. b Species listed were those collected at more than one site nationally; Salmonidae were not listed because they were included on freshwater lists.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-27Source: Abbott, 1974.**Figure 3-2. Geographic distributions of three bivalve species used extensively in national contaminant monitoring programs.** **3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-28 In addition, several species of edible clams were added to the various estuarine/ marine target species lists based on recommendations received from specific state and regional fisheries experts.
Crustaceans are also recommended as target species for estuarine/marine sampling sites. Many crustaceans are bottom-dwelling and bottom-feeding predator and/or scavenger species that are good indicators of contaminants that may be biomagnified through several tr ophic levels of the food web. Several species of lobsters and crabs were recommended in one national monitoring program, and the Dungeness crab was recommended in two national monitoring programs (Table 3-18). These crustaceans, although of fishery value in many areas, are not as widely distributed nationally as the three bivalve species (Figure 3-2). However, they should be considered for selection as target species in states where they are commonly consumed.
Only two crustaceans

— the American lobster ( Homarus americanus) and the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)

— were specifically identified in state advisories (RTI, 1993). However, in 1993, seven coastal states reported advisories in estuarine/ marine waters for unspecified shellfish species that may have included these and other crustacean species (Table 3-19). All of the shellfish species cited in state advisories are included as EPA-recommended target species on the appropriate estuarine/marine regional lists.
**3.4.2 Target Finfish Species**
Two problems were encountered in the selection of target finfish species for monitoring fish tissue contamination at estuarine/marine sites regionally and nationally. First is the lack of finfish species common to both Atlantic and Gulf Coast waters as well as Pacific Coast waters. Species used in several federal fish contaminant monitoring programs are compared in Table 3-18. Members of the families Sciaenidae (seven species), Bothidae (two species), and Pleuronectidae(eight species) were used extensively in these programs. Bottomdwelling finfish species (e.g., flounders in the fam ilies Bothidae and Pleuronectidae ) may accumulate high concentrations of contaminants from direct physical contact with contaminated bottom sediments. In addition, these finfish feed on sedentary infaunal or epifaunal organisms and are at additional risk of accumulating contaminants via ingestion of these contaminated prey species (U.S. EPA, 1987a). For finfish species, two Atlantic coast species, spot ( Leiostomus xanthurus ) and winter flounder ( Pseudopleuronectes americanus ), are recommended and/or used in three of the national monitoring programs, and the Atlantic croaker ( Micropogonias undulatus ) is recommended and/or used in two national monitoring programs. Three Pacific coast species, Starry flounder ( Platichthys stellatus ), English sole ( Parophrys vetulus ), and Dover sole ( Microstomus pacificus ), are recommended or used in two of the national monitoring programs.**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-29 **Table 3-19. Principal Estuarine/Marine Fish and Shellfish Species Cited in State Consumption Advisories**  **a,b**

**Species group name Common name Scientific name Number of**  **states with advisories** 

**in 1993 Number of**  **states with advisories** 

**in 1998**
**Finfish** Percichthyidae **Striped bass** White perch **Morone saxatilis** Morone americana **5** 3 **6** 3 Centrarchidae Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Micropterus salmoides Micropterus dolomieui 0 0 3 1 Ictaluridae White catfish Channel catfish Ictalurus catus Ictalurus punctatus 4 5 2 2
Anguillidae **American eel Anguilla rostrata**  **6 5** Elopidae Ladyfish Elops saurus 0 1 Carangidae Crevalle jack Caranx hippos 0 1 Pomatomidae **Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix**  **4 6**
Labridae Tautog Tautoga onitis 0 1 Sparidae **Scup Stenotomus chrysops**  **0 1** Sciaenidae **Spotted sea trout Atlantic croaker**  **Red drum Black drum**  Silver perch **Cynoscion nebulosus Micropogonias undulatus**  **Sciaenops ocellatus Pogonias cromis**  Bairdiella chrysoura **0 0**  **0 0**  0 **2 1**  **1 1**  1 Scombridae King mackerel Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla Scomberomorus maculatus 0 0 5 1 Ariidae Gafftopsail catfish Bagre marinus 0 1 Belonidae Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 1 1 Serranidae **Kelp bass Paralabrax clathratus**  **1 1** Sciaenidae Black croaker **White croaker** Queenfish **Corbina** Cheilotrema saturnum **Genyonemus lineatus** Seriphus politus **Menticirrhus undulatus** 1 **1** 1 **1** 1 **1** 1 **1 Shellfish**  **Crustaceans c**  **American lobster Blue crab**  **Homarus americanus Callinectes sapidus**  **1 3**  **5 4** 

a Species in boldface are EPA-recommended target species for regional estuarine/marine waters (see Tables 3-10

through 3-16). b Many coastal states issued advisories for fish and shellfish species and thus did not identify specific finfish and

shellfish species in their advisories.

c Eight coastal states (California, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and

Washington) and the U.S. territory of American Samoa report advisories for unspecified shellfish or bivalve species. Sources: RTI, 1993, EPA 1999a (NLFWA).**3. TARGET SPECIES**

3-30 Second, because some estuarine/marine finfish species are highly migratory, harvesting of these species may be restricted to certain seasons because sexually mature adult fish (i.e., the recommended size for sampling) may enter the estuaries only to spawn. EPA recommends that neither spawning populations nor undersized juvenile stages be sampled in fish contaminant monitoring programs. Sampling of target finfish species during their spawning period should be avoided as contaminant tissue concentrations may decrease during this time (Phillips, 1980) and because the spawning period is generally outside the legal harvest period. **Note:** Target finfish species may be sampled during their spawning period if the species can be legally harvested at this time. Sampling of undersized juveniles of species that use estuaries as nursery areas is precluded by EPA ’ s recommended monitoring strategy because juveniles may not have had sufficient time to bioaccumulate contaminants or attain harvestable size.
Because of these problems, the 1993 EPA Workgroup consulted with regional and state fisheries experts and reviewed the list of state fish consumption advisories and bans to determine which estuarine/marine finfish species should be recommended as target species. As shown in Table 3-19, the largest number of states issuing advisories in 1993 for specific estuarine and marine waters did so for the American eel (6), channel catfish (5), striped bass (5), bluefish (4), white catfish (4), and white perch (3). Several other estuarine/marine species were cited in advisories for one state each (Table 3-19). Many coastal states did not identify individual finfish species by name in their advisories (see Appendix D); however, almost all of the species that have been cited in state advisories are recommended as target species by EPA (see Tables 3-10 through 3-16). The listing of estuarine fish and shellfish cited in state advisories in 1998 is also shown in Table 3-19.
These seven regional lists of recommended estuarine/marine target species are provided to give guidance to states on species commonly consumed by the general population. state personnel, with their knowledge of site-specific fisheries and human consumption patterns, must be the ultimate judge of the species selected for use in estuarine/marine fish contaminant monitoring programs within their jurisdiction.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-1 

## SECTION 4

**TARGET ANALYTES**
The selection of appropriate target analytes in fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs is essential to the adequate protection of the health of fish and shellfish consumers. The procedures used for selecting target analytes for screening studies and a list of recommended target analytes are presented in this section.

**4.1 RECOMMENDED TARGET ANALYTES**
Recommended target analytes for screening studies in fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs are listed in Table 4-1. This list was developed by the EPA 1993 Fish Contaminant Workgr oup from a review of the following information:
**1. Pollutants analyzed in several national or regional fish contaminant monitoring programs—**  The monitoring programs reviewed included
• National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA) • National Dioxin Study (U.S. EPA) • 301(h) Monitoring Program (U.S. EPA) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (U.S. EPA) • National Pesticide Monitoring Program (U.S. FWS) • National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (U.S. FWS) • National Status and Trends Program (NOAA) • Great Lakes Sportfish Consumption Advisory Program • National Water Quality Assessment Program (USGS).
Criteria for selection of the target analytes in these programs varied widely depending on specific program objectives. The target analytes used in these major fish contaminant monitoring programs are compared in Appendix E. Over 200 potential contaminants are listed, including metals, pesticides, base/neutral organic compounds, dioxins, dibenzofurans, acidic organic compounds, and volatile organic compounds.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-2 **Table 4-1. Recommended Target Analytes**
**Metals** Arsenic (inorganic) Cadmium Mercury (methylmercury) Selenium Tributyltin **Organochlorine Pesticides** Chlordane, total (cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, oxychlordane) DDT, total (2,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDD, 2,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDE, 2,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDT) Dicofol Dieldrin Endosulfan (I and II) Endrin Heptachlor epoxide a Hexachlorobenzene Lindane (  -hexachlorocyclohexane;  -HCH) b Mirex c Toxaphene **Organophosphate Pesticides** Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Disulfoton Ethion Terbufos **Chlorophenoxy Herbicides** Oxyfluorfen
**PAHs** d
**PCBs**
Total PCBs e (sum of PCB cogeners or Aroclor equivalents)
**Dioxins/furans** f,g

PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls; DDT = p,p ’ -dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane; DDE = p,p ’ -dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethylene; and DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloro ethane.

a Heptachlor epoxide is not a pesticide but is a metabolite of two pesticides, heptachlor and chlordane. b Also known as  -benzene hexachloride (  -BHC).

c Mirex should be regarded primarily as a regional target analyte in the Southeast and Great Lakes states, unless

historic tissue, sediment, or discharge data indicate the likelihood of its presence in other areas. d It is recommended that tissue samples be analyzed for benzo[ a ]pyrene, and 14 other PAHs and that the order-ofmagnitude relative potencies given for these PAHs be used to calculate a potency equivalency concentration (PEC) for each sample for comparison with the recommended SVs for benzo[ a ]pyrene (see Section 5.3.2.5).

e Analysis of total PCBs (as the sum of Aroclors or PCB congeners is recommended for conducting human health

risk assessments for total PCBs (see Sections 4.3.6 and 5.3.2.6). A standard method for Aroclor analysis is available (EPA Method 608). A standard method for congener analysis (EPA Method 1668) is currently under development; however, it has not been finalized. States that currently do congener-specific PCB analysis should continue to do so and other states are encouraged to develop the capability to conduct PCB congener analysis. When standard methods for congener analysis are verified and peer reviewed, the Office of Water will evaluate the use of these methods. f Note: The EPA Office of Research and Development is currently reassessing the human health effects of dioxins/

furans.
g It is recommended that the 17 2,3,7,8-substituted tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo- p -dioxins (PCDDs) and

dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and 12 dioxin-like PCBs be determined and a toxicity-weighted total concentration calculated for each sample (Van den Berg et al., 1998) (see Sections 4.3.7, 5.3.2.6, and 5.3.2.7).

**2. Pesticides with active registrations** 

**—** The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Fate One Liners Database (U.S. EPA, 1993a) containing information for more than 900 registered pesticides was reviewed to identify pesticides and herbicides with active registrations that met four criteria. The screening criteria used were

• Oral toxicity, Class I or II

• Bioconcentration factor greater than 300

• Half-life value of 30 days or more

• Initial use application profile.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-3 At the time of this review, complete environmental fate information was available for only about half of the registered pesticides. As more data become available, additional pesticides will be evaluated for possible inclusion on the target analyte list.
Use of the OPP database was necessary because many pesticides and herbicides with active registrations have not been monitored extensively either in national or state fish contaminant monitoring programs.
**3. Contaminants that have triggered states to issue fish and shellfish consumption advisories or bans** 

**—** The database, National Listing of State Fish and Shellfish Consumption Advisories and Bans (RTI, 1993), was reviewed to identify specific chemical contaminants that have triggered issuance of consumption advisories by the states. As shown in Table 4-2, four contaminants (PCBs, mercury, chlordane, and dioxins/furans) triggered advisories in the largest number of states in 1993. As a comparison, the number of states issuing advisories for each pollutant in 1998 has also been presented while the total number of states issuing advisories for most pollutants generally has increased, the number of states issuing advisories for two major pollutants, chlordane and dioxin, has decreased over the past 5 years.

**4**

. **Published literature on the chemistry and health effects of potential contaminants** 

**—** The physical, chemical, and toxicologic factors considered to be of particular importance in developing the recommended target analyte list were

• Oral toxicity

• Potential of the analyte to bioaccumulate

• Prevalence and persistence of the analyte in the environment

• Biochemical fate of the analyte in fish and shellfish

• Human health risk of exposure to the analyte via consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish

• Analytical feasibility.
Final selection of contaminants by the EPA 1993 Workgroup for the recommended target analyte list (Table 4-1) was based on their frequency of inclusion in national monitoring programs, on the number of states issuing consumption advisories for them in 1993 (Table 4-2), and on their origins, chemistry, potential to bioaccumulate, estimated human health risk, and feasibility of analysis. Primary consideration was also given to the recommendations of the Committee on Evaluation of the Safety of Fishery Products, published in Seafood Safety (NAS, 1991).

**4.2 SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION OF TARGET ANALYTES**
The decision to conduct a fish tissue monitoring study is normally the result of the discovery of specific contaminants during water quality or sediment studies and/or**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-4 **Table 4-2. Contaminants Resulting in Fish and Shellfish Advisories**

**Contaminant Number of states issuing advisories** 

**1993 1998**
**Metals**

Arsenic (total) Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Selenium Tributyltin Zinc Organometallics Unidentified metals 1 2 1 1 4 29 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 5 40 5 0 1 1 1
**Pesticides**

Chlordane DDT and metabolites Dieldrin Heptachlor epoxide Hexachlorobenzene Kepone Mirex Photomirex Toxaphene Unidentified pesticides 24 9 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 22 12 6 1 2 1 3 0 4 2 **Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)** 3 4 **Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)** 32 36
**Dioxins/furans** 20 19 **Other chlorinated organics**

Dichlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Tetrachlorobenzene Tetrachloroethane 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 0
**Others**

Creosote Gasoline Multiple pollutants Phthalate esters Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) Unspecified pollutants 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 0 1 0 Sources: RTI, 1993; U.S. EPA, 1999c.

the identification of pollutant sources in waters routinely used by recreational or subsistence fishers. EPA recognizes that measuring all 25 target analytes in fish tissues collected at all state monitoring sites is expensive and that cost is an important consideration that states must evaluate in designing and implementing**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-5 their fish monitoring programs. Ideally, if resources are available to conduct sampling and analysis of all 25 target analytes, the state should consider this option because it provides the greatest amount of information for fishers in the state on levels of contamination statewide. Also, this approach can better detect the presence of those contaminants that are transported long distances from their points of release (e.g., methylmercury, dioxins/furans, toxaphene), often outside the state ’ s borders, and contaminate relatively pristine areas devoid of any obvious pollutant sources.
If the cost of this approach is prohibitive, however, the state may wish to use a watershed-based approach as a way to reduce sampling and analysis costs (Table 4-3). The selection and prioritization recommendations discussed below are watershed-based and take into consideration l and use categories (rural, agricultural, suburban/urban, and industrial) as well as geological characteristics, regional differences, and national pollution trends. Land use patterns (both current and historic) are often the most important factors in deciding what analytes to select for analysis. The watershed-based approach gives the highest priority (XXX) to analysis of contaminants that are widely dispersed nationally and relatively inexpensive to analyze, such as mercury. This approach gives a lower priority (X) to monitoring organochlorine pesticides (e.g., chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin) at rural and suburban sites, but a higher priority (XX) to monitoring these same chemicals in agricultural watersheds where their use has been extensive or in industrial watersheds where they may have been released during manufacturing, formulation, packaging, or disposal. Because of the very high cost of analysis for some contaminants (e.g., PCBs and dioxins/furans and dioxin-like PCBs), this watershed approach also allows money for these analyses to be directed toward analysis primarily in suburban/urban and industrial watersheds where sources either from historic manufacturing or historic and/or current practices (combustion or incineration sources) have been identified or where water and/or sediment data in the watershed have detected these chemicals at elevated concentrations.

States should use all available environmental data and their best scientific judgment when developing their fish monitoring programs. Using the watershed approach gives states the flexibility to tailor their sampling and analysis programs to obtain needed information as cost-effectively as possible by directing limited resources to obtaining information on contaminant levels most likely to be found in fish tissue at a given site. To be most effective, states need to recognize and carefully evaluate all existing data when assessing which target analytes to monitor at a particular site. States should include any of the recommended EPA target analytes and any additional target analytes in their screening programs when site-specific information (e.g., tissue, water, or sediment data; discharge monitoring data from municipal and industrial sources; or pesticide use data) suggests that these contaminants may be present at levels of concern for human health.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-6 **Table 4-3. Selection and Prioritization of Target Analytes by Watershed Type** 

**Analyte Rural** **Agricultural Suburban/** **Urban Industrial** 

**Sources/Uses**

**Metals**
Arsenic **XX** a **X** a,b **X** a,b **XX** b Naturally occurring as a sulfide in mineral ores; fossil fuel combustion; mining/smelting; wood preservative; insecticide, herbicide, and algacide; hazardous waste site leachate
Cadmium **XX** a **X** a,b **X** a,b **XX** b Smelting/mining; surface mine drainage; uses in paints, alloys, batteries, plastics, pesticides, herbicides; waste disposal operations. Mercury **XX** X c **XX** X c **XX** X c **XX** X c Naturally occurring; atmospheric transport from fossil fuel combustion; mining/smelting; chlorine alkali production; historic use in pulp and paper and paints; Hazardous waste site leachate; statewide freshwater and/or coastal advisories in 15 states
Selenium **XX** a **X** a **X** a **XX d**  Naturally occurring in west and southwest soils; emissions from fossil fuel combustion; leachate from coal fly ash disposal areas Tributyltin **X** d **XX** d Shipyards and marinas; uses in antifouling paint, cooling tower disinfectants, wood preservatives, pulp and paper industry, and textile mills. **Organochlorine Pesticides** 
Chlordane **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Domestic termite control; pesticide manufacturing/ packaging/formulation sites
DDT **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Broad spectrum pesticide use; pesticide manufacturing/ packaging/formulation sites
Dicofol e **XX** b **XX** b Miticide/pesticide for cotton, apples, and citrus primarily in FL and CA; lesser use in turf, ornamentals, pears, apricots, and cherries; pesticide manufacturing/ packaging/formulation sites
Dieldrin **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Broad spectrum pesticide for termites/soil insects and for cotton, corn, and citrus; pesticide manufacturing/ packaging/formulation sites
Endosulfan e **XX** b **XX** b Noncontact insecticide for seed and soil treatments; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites
Endrin **XX** b **XX** b Broad spectrum pesticide; pesticide manufacturing/ packaging/formulation sites Heptachlor epoxide **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Degradation product of heptachlor used as a contact and ingested soil insecticide for termites and household pesticide and chlordane also used as a termiticide; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites for heptachlor and chlordane**Table 4-3. (continued) 4. TARGET ANALYTES** 

**Analyte Rural** **Agricultural Suburban/** **Urban Industrial** 

**Sources/Uses**

4-7 Hexachlorobenzene **XX** b **XX** b Fungicide used as seed protectant, used as chemical intermediate in production of many other organochlorine pesticides; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites for a wide variety of organochlorine pesticides
Lindane e **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Seed and soil treatments for tobacco; foliage applications for fruit and nut trees and vegetables; wood preservative. pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites
Mirex **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Used extensively in Southeast and Gulf Coast states against fire ants; used in fire retardants and plastic polymerizer; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/ formulation sites Toxaphene **XX** b **XX** b Insecticide for cotton; piscicide for rough fish; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites **Organophosphate Pesticides**  Chlorpyrifos e **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Widely used on cotton, peanuts, and sorghum as well as fruits and vegetables; domestic household insecticide with lawn and garden applications. Use applications will change by the end of 2001. All residential use will end as will use on tomatoes. Use on apples and grapes will be greatly reduced (U.S. EPA, 2000b). Used as a termiticide in California; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/ formulation sites
Diazinon e **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Widely used on a broad variety of fruits and vegetables, field crops, and pastureland; domestic household insecticide used for lawn and garden applications; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites
Disulfoton e **XX** b **XX** b Widely used as a side dressing, broadcast, and foliar spray and as a seed dressing; pesticide manufacturing/ packaging/formulation sites
Ethion e **XX** b **X** b **XX** b Major use on citrus, fruit and nut trees, and vegetables. Domestic outdoor use around homes and lawns; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites
Terbufos e **XX** b **XX** b Used principally on corn, sugar beets, and grain sorghum; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites **Chlorophenoxy Herbicides**  Oxyfluorfen e **XX** b **XX** b Widely used to control grass and weeds in corn, cotton, soybeans, fruit and nut trees, and ornamental crops; pesticide manufacturing/packaging/formulation sites**Table 4-3. (continued) 4. TARGET ANALYTES** 

**Analyte Rural** **Agricultural Suburban/** **Urban Industrial** 

**Sources/Uses**

4-8 **Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS)**  **X** d **X** d Components of crude and refined petroleum and coal products; waste incineration, wood preservatives, creosote, coal tar, coal coking, urban runoff from asphalt, automobile tires and exhaust emissions, and petroleum spills; coal gasification sites, and petroleum refineries. **Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)**  **X** d **X** d Produced as Arochlors for use as dielectric fluid in electrical transformers and as hydraulic fluid; leachate from land fills and Superfund sites.
**Dioxins and Dibenzofurans**  **X** d **X** d Industrial sites including bleached kraft paper mills, facilities handling 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5,-T), 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (2,4,5-TCP), silvex, hexachlorobenzene, pentachlorophenol, and PCBs.; Industrial and municipal combustors and incinerators

a Tissue residue analysis is recommended if geologic characteristics suggest potential for elevated metal concentrations

in water or sediment or if sources are identified in the watershed suggesting the presence of this target analyte at the sampling site.
b Tissue residue analysis is recommended if use application of this pesticide has been reported in the watershed either

from historic or current use data, if sources like pesticide production/packaging/formulation facilities exist in the watershed, or if the state has water and/or sediment data indicating the presence of this target analyte at the sampling site.

c Tissue residue analysis is highly recommended at all sites.
d Tissue residue analysis is recommended if sources as described in Sources/Uses column are identified in

suburban/urban or industrial watershed or the state has water and/or sediment data indicating the presence of this analyte at the sampling site.

e Pesticide with currently active registration

**X** = Analysis for target analyte should be considered if water and or sediment analysis results detect the target analyte or if historic or current use information provide evidence for the potential presence of this target analyte in the watershed. **XX** = Analysis for target analyte is recommended for this land use type if historic or current use information provides evidence of the potential presence of this target analyte in the watershed. **XXX** = Analysis for target analyte is highly recommended at all stations in all watershed types.
**Rural.** The major analytes of concern in rural waterbodies (i.e., watersheds with no past or current urban/suburban, industrial, or agricultural uses) are the metals, including arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and selenium. Weathering processes in certain geologic areas can result in elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and selenium in water and sediments. State agencies should also be aware of past land use patterns in what are now considered rural areas of their states. For example, abandoned mining sites may be a source of metal contamination via leaching from mine drainage or slag piles. Large areas east of the Appalachians were agricultural watersheds during the early to mid twentieth century. While some of this agriculture land is now suburban/urban in its use, other areas, particularly in the South, are reverting to forests that might at first glance be classified as rural use. Arsenic compounds were used as pesticides in the early**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-9 1900s, and, along with organochlorine pesticides, may still be present in farmland abandoned after the 1940s. States should also be aware that mercury has been identified in fish collected from what would be classified as rural or pristine areas of the Great Lakes basins and waterbodies in the northeastern and southeastern states remote from any obvious point sources of pollution. Mercury contamination in these areas seems to be facilitated through the atmospheric transport of this metal. Because mercury is the target analyte that has triggered issuance of the largest number of advisories in the United States (nearly 68 percent of all advisories nationwide) and because of the relatively low cost of chemical analysis for this analyte, EPA recommends that this metal be monitored at all rural sites, especially those where little or no monitoring data are available.
Depending on site-specific conditions and considerations, states may opt to analyze for mercury as well as a suite of other heavy metals that can be analyzed as a group at relatively low cost. The only target analyte metal that should not be analyzed for routinely in rural areas without other supporting data is tributyltin, which is typically found near boatyards and marinas or near wood preservative production facilities. States may include any of the recommended EPA targetanalytes and any additional target analytes in their screening programs when sitespecific information on a rural watershed suggests that these contaminants may be present at levels of concern for human health.
**Agricultural.** The major analytes of concern in agricultural waterbodies (i.e., watersheds where past or current land use is dominated by agriculture) are the organochlorine and or ganophosphate pesticides and the chlor ophenoxy herbicide,oxyfluorfen. These analytes fall into two categories, those with inactive registrations (i.e. banned or withdrawn from the market) and those with active registrations (endosulfan, lindane, dicofol, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, terbufos, ethion, disulfoton, and oxyfluorfen). Although use of some of the or ganochlorine pesticides was terminated more than 20 years ago in the United States (e.g., DDT, dieldrin, endrin, and mirex) , these compounds still need to be monitored. Many of the organochlorine pesticides that are now banned were used in large quantities for over a decade and are still present in high concentrations at some sites. On a nationwide basis, chlordane and DDT, for example, are responsible for 3 and 1 percent, respectively, of the advisories currently in effect. For the pesticides with active registrations, use and rate application information maintained by the state ’ s Department of Agriculture should be reviewed to identify watersheds where these pesticides are currently used and are likely to be present in aquatic systems as a result of agricultural runoff or drift. Unlike many of the historically used organochlorine pesticides, the pesticides in current use degrade relatively rapidly in the environment. In addition, federal regulations are in effect that set maximum application rates and minimize use near waterbodies. At the time of this writing, no fish consumption advisories for these analytes have yet been issued; however, state agencies should be aware of special circumstances that could result in accumulation in fish. In addition to accidental spills and misapplication, heavy and repeated rainfall shortly after application may wash these pesticides into streams. Signs of pesticide pollution may include erratic swimming behavior in fish as well as fish kills.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-10 It is also important to note that pesticide uses and labels may change over time. All pesticides with active registrations are currently being reviewed by EPA under provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The state agency responsible for designing the fish contaminant monitoring program should be aware of all historic and current uses of each pesticide within its state, including the watersheds, application rates, and acreage where the pesticide has been or currently is applied to ensure that all potentially contaminated sites are included in the sampling plan. Because mercury contamination seems to be facilitated through atmospheric transport, because it has triggered issuance of the largest number of U.S. advisories, and because of the relatively low cost of chemical analysis for this analyte, EPA recommends that this metal be monitored at allagricultural sites, especially those for which little or no monitoring data are available. Additionally, states may also want to analyze for other metals (arsenic, cadmium, and selenium). States may include any of the recommended EPA target analytes and any additional target analytes in their screening programs when site-specific information on an agricultural watershed suggests that these contaminants may be present at levels of concern for human health.

**Suburban/Urban.** Water and sediment quality are often regularly monitored in suburban and urban areas, and selection of target analytes should be based on these data when available. Some suburban watersheds of today were agricultural watersheds during the early twentieth century. Arsenic compounds were widely used as pesticides in the early 1900s, as were organochlorine pesticides. These contaminants may still be present in farmland abandoned after the 1940s. As a result of the rapid population growth in recent years, other suburban areas have been built on former industrial sites, so historical information on land use should be obtained by states whenever possible and reviewed carefully during the target analyte selection process.
Several of the organophosphates as well as organochlorine pesticides have had wide use in control of pests around domestic structures as well as in lawn and garden applications (see Table 4-3). Chlorpyrifos and diazinon are currently used by pest control applicators and the general public (Robinson et al., 1994), and diazinon has been reported at high concentrations in effluents from POTWs in some suburban/urban areas (Amato et al., 1992; Burkhard and Jensen, 1993). Historically, chlordane was used extensively in termite control around homes and DDT was used as a general all-purpose insecticide. Nationally, chlordane and DDT are responsible for 3 and 1 percent, respectively, of the advisories currently in effect, and their use within suburban/urban watersheds should be considered as should the use of any of the pesticides registered for use around domestic structures or in lawn and garden applications. Depending on the proximity of some suburban/urban sites to industrial areas, states may also wish to review historic or current information on production sites associated with any of the pesticides, PAHs, PCBs, and dioxin/furans. Because of the historic and current uses of mercury in a variety of industrial processes, because it has triggered issuance of the largest number of U.S. advisories, and because of the relatively low cost of chemical analysis, EPA recommends that this metal be monitored at all surburban/urban sites, especially those where either little or no monitoring data**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-11 are available. States should include any of the recommen ded EPA targetanalytes and any additional target analytes in their screening programs when sitespecific information on a suburban/urban watershed suggests that these contaminants may be present at levels of concern for human health.

**Industrial.** All of the recommended target analytes can enter waterbodies through releases from industrial processes, Superfund sites, or landfills. Often water and sediment data are available to help guide the selection of the target analytes that should be given high priority with respect to analysis. Selection of analytes for analysis in industrial watersheds should be guided by knowledge of the type of industrial production that has existed in the past or is currently present in the watershed. Historical information is particularly important since potential contaminants may still be present at abandoned industrial sites or contained in sediments in receiving waterbodies. Sources of these target analytes are listedin Section 4.3, which contains the individual target analyte profiles and descriptions of the types of industries that may contribute to releases of these specific pollutants. Again, the states should review all existing water and sediment quality data available before selecting the specific target analytes for analysis at each site. Because of the historic and current uses of mercury in a variety of industrial processes, because it has triggered issuance of the largest number of U.S. advisories, and because of the relatively low cost of chemical analysis, EPA recommends that this metal be monitored at all industrial sites, especially those where little or no monitoring data are available. The other metals, including tributyltin, should also be considered for analysis based on existence of industrial production facilities, waste disposal facilities (e.g., Superfund or hazardous waste sites, and landfills), or shipyards where these target analytes may have been released to the environment. With respect to the pesticides, sites of production, formulation, and packaging facilities can all potentially be sites for release of these contaminants into the surrounding environment. Petroleum refining and coal gasification and processing fac ilities can also be sites for discharges of PAHs. PCBs can be released from historic landfills where PCB-containing equipment was disposed of or from sites of historic PCB production or use. Dioxins and dibenzofurans are likely to be found in proximity to historic or current industrial sites such as bleached kraft paper mills or production facilities for 2,4,5- trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (2,4,5-TCP), and/or silvex and medical, municipal, or industrial combustors or incinerators. States should include any of the recommended EPA target analytes and any additional target analytes in their screening programs when site-specific information on an industrial watershed suggests that these contaminants may be present at levels of concern for human health.
Specific factors that have been considered in the selection of the recommended 25 target analytes and sources for their release into the environment are summarized in the next section. Chemical pollutants that are currently under review by EPA ’ s Office of Water for inclusion as recommended target analytes are discussed in Section 4.4.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-12 **4.3 TARGET ANALYTE PROFILES**

**4.3.1 Metals**

Five metals

— arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and tributyltin

— are recommended as target analytes in screening studies. Arsenic, cadmium, and mercury have been included in at least five of the eight major fish contaminant monitoring programs reviewed by the 1993 Workgroup (see Appendix E). It should be noted, however, that with respect to arsenic, all monitoring programs measured total arsenic rather than inorganic arsenic. Selenium was monitored in four national monitoring programs. Tributyltin, a constituent in antifouling paints was not recommended for analysis in any of the national programs evaluated by the 1993 Workgroup. As of 1993, fish consumption advisories were in effect for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and tributyltin in 1, 2, 29, 5, and 1 states, respectively (Table 4-2). As of 1998, fish advisories were in effect for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and selenium in 3, 3, 40, and 11 states, respectively. No states had active advisories for tributyltin (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Also, with the exception of tributyltin, these metals have been identified as having the greatest potential toxicity resulting from ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish (NAS, 1991).

**4.3.1.1 Arsenic**

**—**
Arsenic is the twentieth most abundant element in the earth ’ s crust and naturally occurs as a sulfide in a variety of mineral ores containing copper, lead, iron, nickel, cobalt, and other metals (Eisler, 1988; Merck Index, 1989; Woolson, 1975). Arsenic is released naturally to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions and forest fires (Walsh et al., 1979) and to water via natural weathering processes (U.S. EPA, 1982b). Arsenic also has several major anthr opogenic sources including industrial emissions from coal-burning electric generating facilities, releases, as a byproduct of nonferrous metal (gold, silver, copper, lead, uranium, and zinc) mining and smelting operations (Eisler, 1988; May and McKinney, 1981; NAS, 1977), releases associated with its production and use as a wood preservative (primarily as arsenic trioxide), and application as an insecticide, herbicide, algicide, and growth stimulant for plants and animals (Appendix F) (Eisler, 1988). Arsenic releases are also associated with leaching at hazardous waste disposal sites and discharges from sewage treatment facilities. Arsenic trioxide is the arsenic compound of chief commercial importance (U.S. EPA, 1982b) and was produced in the United States until 1985 at the ASARCO smelter near Tacoma, Washington. Arsenic is no longer produced commercially within the United States in any significant quantities, but arsenic compounds are imported into the United States primarily for use in various wood preservative and pesticide formulations.
The toxicity of arsenicals is highly dependent upon the nature of the compounds, and particularly upon the valency state of the arsenic atom (Frost, 1967; Penrose, 1974; Vallee et al., 1960). Typically, compounds containing trivalent (+3) arsenic are much more toxic than those containing pentavalent (+5) arsenic. The valency of the arsenic atom is a more important factor in determining toxicity than the**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-13 organic or inorganic nature of the arsenic-containing compound (Edmonds and Francesconi, 1993). With respect to inorganic arsenic compounds, salts of arsenic acid (arsenates) with arsenic in the pentavalent state are less toxic than arsenite compounds with arsenic in the trivalent state (Penrose, 1974). Because some reduction of arsenate (pentavalent arsenic) to arsenite (trivalent arsenic) might occur in the mammalian body (Vahter and Envall, 1983), it would be unwise to disregard the possible toxicity of inorganic arsenic ingested in either valency state (Edmonds and Francesconi, 1993).
Seafood is a major source of trace am ounts of arsenic in the human diet. However, arsenic in the edible parts of fish and shellfish is predominantly present as the arsenic-containing organic compound arsenobetaine (Cullen and Reimer, 1989; Edmonds and Francesconi, 1987a; NAS, 1991). Arsenobetaine is a stable compound containing a pentavalent arsenic atom, which has been shown to be metabolically inert and nontoxic in a number of studies (Cannon et al., 1983; Bos et al., 1985; Kaise et al., 1985; Sabbioni et al., 1991; Vahter et al., 1983) and is not generally considered a threat to human health (ATSDR, 1998a). Inorganic arsenic, although a minor component of the total arsenic content of fish and shellfish when compared to arsenobetaine, presents potential toxicity problems. To the degree that inorganic forms of arsenic are either present in seafood or, upon consumption, may be produced as metabolites of organic arsenic compounds in seafood, some human health risk, although small, would be expected (NAS, 1991).
Inorganic arsenic is very toxic to mammals and has been assigned to Toxicity Class I based on oral toxicity tests (U.S. EPA, 1998d). Use of several arsenical pesticides has been discontinued because of the health risks to animals and man.Inorganic arsenic also has been classified as a human carcinogen (A), and longterm effects include dermal hyperkeratosis, dermal melanosis and carcinoma, hepatomegaly, and peripheral neuropathy (IRIS, 1999) (Appendix G).
Total arsenic (inclusive of both inorganic and organic forms) has been included in five of the eight national monitoring programs evaluated by the 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). Arsenic and arsenic-containing organic compounds have not been shown to bioaccumulate to any great extent in aquatic or ganisms (NAS, 1977). Experimental evidence indicates that inorganic forms of both pentavalent and trivalent arsenic bioaccumulate minimally in several species of finfish including rainbow trout, bluegill, and fathead minnows (ASTER, 1999). A bioconcentration factor (BCF) value of 350 was reported for the American oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) exposed to trivalent arsenic (Zaroogian and Hoffman, 1982).
In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 315 composite samples of whole fish from 109 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). The authors reported the the maximum, geometric mean, and 85 th percentile concentrations for total arsenic were 1.5, 0.14, and 0.27 ppm (wet weight), respectively. No information, however, was avaiIable on the percentage of inorganic arsenic in the fish sampled in the NCBP study. Kidwell et al. (1995)**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-14 conducted an analysis of total arsenic levels in bottom-feeding and predator fish using the 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study. These authors reported that the mean total arsenic tissue concentrations of 0.16 ± 0.23 ppm in bottom feeders and 0.16 + 0.14 ppm in predator fish were not significantly different.
Edmonds and Francesconi (1993) summarized existing data from studies conducted outside the United States comparing concentrations of total arsenic, organic arsenic, and inorganic arsenic in marine fish and shellfish. Inorganic arsenic was found to represent from 0 to 44 percent of the total arsenic in marine fish and shellfish species surveyed. Residue concentrations of inorganic arsenic in the tissues typically ranged from 0 to 5.6 ppm (wet weight basis); but were generally less than 0.5 ppm for most species. In a study of six species of freshwater fish monitored as part of the Lower Columbia River study, inorganic arsenic represented from 0.1 to 27 percent of the total arsenic, and tissue residues of inorganic arsenic ranging from 0.001 to 0.047 ppm (wet weight) were 100 times lower than those reported for marine species (Tetra Tech, 1995).
In 1993, only one state (Oregon) had an advisory in effect for arsenic contamination (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were three advisories in effect in three states (Louisiana, Oregon, and Washington) for this metal (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Because it is the concentration of inorganic arsenic in fish and shellfish that poses the greatest threat to human health, EPA recommends that total inorganic arsenic (not total arsenic) be analyzed in contaminant monitoring programs. A chemical analysis procedure for determining total inorganic arsenic residues in fish and shellfish tissues is provided in Appendix H. Total inorganic arsenic should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish monitoring programs in areas where it occurs in geologic formations, sites where mining or smelter operations have occurred, or where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate state agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of arsenic particularly as a wood preservative and in agricultural pesticides.

**4.3.1.2 Cadmium**

**—** Cadmium is commonly found in zinc, lead, and copper deposits (May and McKinney, 1981). It is released into the environment from several anthropogenic sources: smelting and refining of ores, electroplating, application of phosphate fertilizers, surface mine drainage (Farag et al., 1998; U.S. EPA, 1978), and waste disposal operations (municipal incineration and land application) (U.S. EPA, 1979a, 1987c). Cadmium is also used in the m anufacture of paints, alloys, batteries, and plastics and has been used in the control of moles and plant diseases in lawns.
Cadmium is a cumulative human toxicant; it has been shown to cause renal dysfunction and a degenerative bone disease, Itai-Itai, in Japanese populations exposed via consumption of contaminated rice, fish, and water. Because cadmium is retained in the kidney, older individuals (over 40-50 years of age) typically have both the highest renal concentrations of cadmium and the highest prevalence of renal dysfunction (U.S. EPA, 1979a). Cadmium is a known**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-15 carcinogen in animals, and there is limited evidence of the carcinogenicity of cadmium or cadmium compounds in humans. It has been classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen by inhalation (B1) (IRIS, 1999).

Cadmium has been found to bioaccumulate in fish and shellfish tissues in fresh water (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990) and in estuarine/marine waters (NOAA, 1987, 1989a) nationwide. In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 315 composite samples of whole fish from 109 stations nationwide as part of the NCBP (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). The authors reported the maximum, geometric mean, and 85 th percentile concentrations for cadmium were 0.22, 0.03, and 0.05 ppm (wet weight), respectively. In the NCBP study, geometric mean concentrations of cadmium in freshwater fish were found to have declined from 0.07 ppm in 1976 to 0.03 ppm in 1984 (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). This trend contradicts the general trend of increasing cadmium concentrations in surface waters, which Smith et al. (1987) attribute to increasing U.S. coal combustion (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of cadmium concentrations in bottom-feeding and predatory fish species using the 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study. These authors found that mean cadmium tissue concentration (whole fish samples) of 0.04 ± 0.05 ppm in bottom feeders (e.g., carp, white sucker, and channel catfish) was significantly higher than the mean cadmium tissue concentration of 0.01 ± 0.02 ppm found in predator fish (e.g., trout, walleye, largemouth bass).
In 1993, only two states (New York and Ohio) had issued fish advisories for cadmium contamination (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were seven advisories in effect in three states (Maine, New Jersey, and New York) for this heavy metal (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Two of these states, New York and New Jersey, have issued advisories for this metal in all of their marine coastal waters. Maine has a statewide wildlife advisory in effect for cadmium in moose liver and kidney tissue (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Cadmium should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where it occurs in geologic formations, where mining or smelter operations have occurred, or where its use is or has been extensive.
**4.3.1.3 Mercury**

**—** A major source of atmospheric mercury is the natural degassing of the earth ’ s crust, amounting to 2,700 to 6,000 tons per year (WHO, 1990) Primary points of entry of mercury into the environment from anthropogenic sources include mining and smelting, industrial processes including chlorine-alkali pr oduction facilities and atmospheric deposition resulting from combustion of coal and other fossil fuels and municipal and medical refuse incinerators (U.S. EPA, 1997c; Glass et al., 1990). Primary industrial uses of mercury are in the manufacture of batteries, vapor discharge lamps, rectifiers, fluorescent bulbs, switches, thermometers, and industrial control instruments (May and McKinney, 1981), and these products ultimately end up in landfills or incinerators. Mercury has also been used as a slimicide in the pulp and paper industry, as an antifouling and mildew-proofing**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-16 agent in paints, and as an antifungal seed dressing (ATSDR, 1998; Farm Chemicals Handbook , 1989; Friberg and Vostal, 1972).
Although mercury use and losses from industrial processes in the United States have been reduced significantly since the 1970s, mercury contamination associated with increased fossil fuel combustion is of concern in some areas and may pose more widespread contamination problems in the future. An estimated 5,000 tons of mercury per year is released into the environment from fossil fuel burning (Klaassen et al., 1986). The best estimate of annual anthropogenic U.S. emissions of mercury in 1994-1995 was 158 tons. Of this, about 87 percent was released from combustion sources, including waste and fuel combustion. (U.S.EPA, 1997). There is also increasing evidence of elevated mercury concentrations in areas where acid rain is believed to be a factor (NESCAUM, 1998;Sheffy, 1987; Wiener, 1987). Volatilization from surfaces painted with mercurycontaining paints, both indoors and outdoors, may have been a significant source in the past (Agocs et al., 1990; Sheffy, 1987). The United States estimated that 480,000 pounds of mercuric fungicides were used in paints and coatings in 1987 (NPCA, 1988). In July 1990, EPA announced an agreement with the National Paint and Coatings Association to cancel all registrations for use of mercury or mercury compounds in interior paints and coatings. In May 1991, the paint industry voluntarily canceled all remaining registrations for mercury in exterior paints.
Cycling of mercury in the environment is facilitated by the volatile character of its metallic form and by bacterial transformation of metallic and inorganic forms to stable alkyl mercury compounds, particularly in bottom sediments, which leads to bioaccumulation of mercury (Wood, 1974). Practically all mercury in fish tissue is in the form of methylmercury (Bache et al., 1971; Bloom, 1992; Kannan et al., 1998; Spry and Wiener, 1991), which is toxic to humans (NAS, 1991; Tollefson, 1989), with the percentage of methylmercury to total mercury in the muscle tissue increasing as the fish ages (Bache et al., 1971). Several studies have shown that mercury concentrations in fish tissue generally increase with age, and therefore size (length or weight), owing to methylmercury accumulation with increasing duration of exposure (Driscoll et al., 1994; Jackson, 1990; Johnson, 1987; Lange et al., 1993); however this relationship is not as strongly correlated in all environmental situations or for all fish species (Goldstein et al., 1996; Neumann et al., 1997).

EPA has classified methylmercury as a Group C, possible human carcinogen, based on inadequate data in humans and limited evidence in animals (Appendix G). No persuasive evidence of increased carcinogenicity attributable to methylmercury exposure was observed in three human studies; however, interpretation of these studies was limited by poor study design and other problems. Animal studies have shown significant increases in the incidences of kidney tumors in male, but not in female, mice (IRIS, 1999).
Both inorganic and organic forms of mercury are neurotoxicants. Fetuses exposed to organic mercury have been fo und to be born mentally retar ded and**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-17 with symptoms similar to those of cerebral palsy (Marsh, 1987; U.S. EPA, 1997c). Individuals exposed to mercury via long-term ingestion of mercury-contaminated fish have been found to exhibit a wide range of symptoms, including numbness of the extremities, tremors, spasms, personality and behavior changes, difficulty in walking, deafness, blindness, and death (U.S. EPA, 1997c). Organomercury compounds were the causative agents of Minamata Disease, a neurological disorder reported in Japan during the 1950s among individuals consuming contaminated fish and shellfish (Kurland et al., 1960), with infants exposedprenatally found to be at significantly higher risk than adults. Another methylmercury poisoning incident involving fish and shellfish occurred in 1965 in Niigata, Japan. A third methylmercury poisoning incident occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Iraq; however, this last incident was associated with the accidental consumption of seed grain treated with organomercury fungicide (U.S. EPA, 1997c). The EPA is especially concerned about evidence that the fetus is at increased risk of adverse neurological effects from exposure to methylmercury (e.g., Marsh et al., 1987; Piotrowski and Inskip, 1981; Skerfving, 1988; WHO, 1976, 1990; U.S. EPA, 1997c).
The EPA has set an interim Reference Dose (RfD) for methylmercury of 0.1  g/kg-d (IRIS 1999). The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted an independent assessment of the interim RfD. They concluded “ On the basis of its evalution, the committee ’ s consensus is that the value of EPA ’ s current RfD for methylmercury, 0.1 μg/kg per day, is a scientifically justifiable level for the protection of public health ” . However, the NAS recommended that the Iraqi study no longer be used as the scientific basis for the RfD. In addition, the NAS recommended that the developmental neurotoxic effects of methylmercury reported in the Faroe Islands study should be used as the basis for the derivation of the RfD. ” (NAS, 2000)
Mercury has been found in both fish and shellfish from estuarine/marine (NOAA, 1987, 19 89a) and fresh waters (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990) at diverse locations nationwide. In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 315 composite samples of whole fish from 109 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (NCBP) (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). The authors reported that the maximum, geometric mean, and 85 th percentile concentrations for mercury were 0.37, 0.10, and 0.17 ppm (wet weight), respectively. In contrast to cadmium and selenium, concentrations of mercury in freshwater fish tissue did not decline between 1976 and 1984 (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of mercury levels in bottom-feeding and predator fish using the 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study. These authors reported that the mean mercury tissue concentration (whole fish samples) of 0.12 ± 0.08 ppm in predator fish (e.g., trout, walleye, largemouth bass) was significantly higher than the mean tissue concentration of 0.08 + 0.006 ppm in bottom feeders (e.g., carp, white sucker, and channel catfish).
Mercury, the only metal analyzed as part of the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, was detected at 92 percent of 374 sites surveyed. Maximum,**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-18 arithmetic mean, and median concentrations in fish tissue were 1.77, 0.26, and 0.17 ppm (wet weight), respectively (U.S. EPA, 1991h, 1992c, 1992d). Bahnick et al. (1994) analyzed the NSCRF data by fish species and reported that mean mercury concentrations in bottom feeders (whole body samples) were generally lower than concentrations for predator fish (fillet samples). Carp, white sucker, and channel catfish (bottom feeders) had average tissue concentrations of 0.11, 0.11, and 0.09 ppm, respectively. Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and walleye (predator species) had average tissue concentrations of 0.46, 0.34, and 0.52 ppm, respectively (Bahnick et al., 1994). With regard to the source of the mercury contamination, Bahnick et al. (1994) reported that the highest mean concentration of mercury was detected in fish sampled near public treatment works (0.59 ppm); however, background sites and sites near wood preserving facitities exhibited the second (0.34 ppm) and third (0.31 ppm) highest mean mercury concentrations. The authors also reported that most of the higher tissue concentrations of mercury were detected in freshwater fish samples collected in the Northeast.
Recently, the northeastern states and eastern Canadian provinces issued theirown mercury study, including a comprehensive analysis of mercury concentrations in a variety of freshwater sportfish (NESCAUM, 1998). This study involved a large number of sampling sites, including remote lake sites that did not receive point source discharges. Top-level piscivores (i.e., predator fish), such as walleye, chain pickerel, and large and smallmouth bass, were typically found to exhibit the highest concentrations, with mean tissue residues greater than 0.5 ppm and maximum residues exceeding 2 ppm. One largemouth bass sample was found to contain 8.94 ppm of mercury, while a smallmouth bass sampled contained 5 ppm. A summary of the range and the mean concentrations found in eight species of sportfish sampled is shown in Table 4-4 (NESCAUM, 1998).
**Table 4-4. Total Mercury and Methylmercury Concentrations in Estuarine Fish from South Florida** 

**Species Mean mercury concentration**  **a (ppm) and range**  **Mean methylmercury a**  **concentration (ppm) and range** Hardhead catfish 1.94 (0.44-4.64) 1.54 (0.18-4.42) Gafftopsail catfish 3.0 (0.76-10.10) 1.86 (0.72-4.50) Sand seatrout 2.41 (2.21-2.61) 2.04 (1.60-2.47) Sand seaperch 0.48 (0.40-0.54) 0.42 (0.40-0.49) Pinfish 0.54 (0.32-1.06) 0.44 (0.20-0.90) White grunt 0.49 (0.28-1.03) 0.49 (0.31-0.99) Lane snapper 0.57 (0.22-1.03) 0.58 (0.19-1.27) Spot 0.29 (0.11-0.43) 0.24 (0.06-0.40)

a Concentrations are in ppm (μg/g) wet weight basis.
Source: Kannan et al., 1998.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-19 EPA ’ s Office of Water also recently published results of a national survey of mercury concentrations in fish (U.S. EPA, 1999d). This survey compiled state data on tissue residue levels of mercury in fish analyzed by 39 states between 1990 and 1995. The range of mean mercury concentrations (ppm) for the nine major fish species reported were as follows: largemouth bass, 0.001-8.94; smallmouth bass, 0.008-3.34; walleye, 0.008-3.0; northern pike, 0.10-4.4; c hannel catfish, 0.001-2.57; bluegill sunfish, 0.001-1.68; common carp, 0.001-1.8; white sucker, 0.002-1.71; and yellow perch, 0.01-2.14. All mercury concentrations used in the study were expressed on a wet weight and fillet basis. While the majority of the finfish sampled were freshwater species, some estuarine and marine species were also included; however, the report excluded all nonfish species such as turtles, molluscs, and crustaceans. Although comparison of data between states was difficult because of differences in sampling strategies (representative versus targeted), differences in analytical procedures, and the fact that mercury concentrations may vary with age of the fish, the analysis did indicate that both the magnitude and variability of mercury concentrations were greater in higher trophic level fish species.
Another recent study was conducted to assess total mercury and methylmercury concentrations in estuarine fish from south Florida coastal waters (Kannan et al., 1998). The authors reported that concentrations of total mercury in fish muscle tissue ranged between 0.03 and 2.22 ppm (mean: 0.31 ppm) (wet weight basis), with methylmercury contributing 83 percent of the total mercury. The mean concentrations and range of total mercury and methylmercury in muscle tissue of different species collected from south Florida ’ s coastal waters are shown in Table 4-4.
In another study, methylmercury concentrations in muscle tissue of nine species of sharks were analyzed from four different locations along the coast of Florida (Hueter et al., 1995). Muscle tissue methylmercury concentrations averaged 0.88 ppm (wet weight) and ranged from 0.06 to 2.87 ppm, with 31 percent of the samples tested exceeding 1 ppm. A positive correlation was found between methylmercury concentration and the body length (size) of the shark, such that sharks larger than 2 m in total l ength contained methylmercury concentrations >1 ppm. Sharks collected off the southern and southwestern coastal areas contained significantly higher concentrations than those caught in the northeast coastal region (Cape Canaveral and north). Methylmercury concentrations were highest in the Caribbean reef shark ( Carcharhinus perezi ). The two most abundant shark species in the U.S. East Coast commercial shark fishery, the sandbar ( C. plumbeus ) and blacktip ( C. limbatus ) sharks, are of special public health concern. Although the mean methylmercury concentration in the sandbar shark (0.77 ppm) was below the average for all sharks, sandbar shark tissues contained up to 2.87 ppm methylmercury, and 20.9 percent of the sampled fish exceeded 1 ppm. Of more concern is that 71.4 percent of the blacktip shark samples (mean, 1.3 ppm) exceeded 1 ppm methylmercury. The authors suggest that continued monitoring of methylmercury concentrations in various shark species is warranted, since these fish are taken in both recreational and commercial fisheries. Similarly, on the West Coast, Fairey et al. (1997) reported**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-20 that the highest concentrations of mercury found in all of the fish species sampled as part of a fish monitoring effort in the San Franscico Bay and Estuary were detected in leopard shark muscle tissue (1.26 ppm wet weight basis).
In 1993, 898 fish advisories had been issued in 29 states as a result of mercury contamination (see Figure 4-1). In particular, mercury was included in a large number of the fish advisories in effect for lakes in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and for rivers and lakes in Florida (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, 1,931 advisories had been issued in 40 states for this metal, and mercury is responsible for more than 68 percent of all fish advisories issued in the United States. In addition, 10 states have statewide advisories in effect for mercury in freshwater lakes and/or rivers and 5 Gulf Coast states have statewide mercury advisories in effect for their coastal marine waters (U.S. EPA, 1999c).
Because of its widespread occurrence in fish across the United States, mercury should be monitored in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs at all stations. Only one national program reviewed by the 1993 Workgroup

— EPA 301(h) monitoring program

— recommended analyzing specifically for methylmercury; however, six programs recommended analyzing for total mercury (Appendix E). Because of the higher cost of methylmercury analysis two to three times greater than for total mercury analysis). EPA recommends that total mercury be determined in state fish contaminant monitoring programs and the conservative assumption be made that all mercury is present as methylmercury so as to be most protective of human health. It should be noted that Bache et al. (1971) analyzed methylmercury concentrations in lake trout of known ages and found that methylmercury concentration and the ratio of methylmercury to total mercury increased with age. Relative proportions of methylmercury in fish varied between 30 and 100 percent, with methylmercury concentrations lower than 80 percent occurring in fish 3 years of age or younger. Thus, when high concentrations of total mercury are detected, and if resources are sufficient, states may wish to repeat sampling and obtain more specific information on actual concentrations of methylmercury in various age or size classes of fish.

**4.3.1.4 Selenium**

**—** Selenium is a natural component of many soils, particularly in the west and southwest regions of the United States (NAS, 1991). It enters the environment primarily via emissions from oil and coal combustion (May and McKinney, 1981; Pillay et al., 1969). Selenium is an essential nutrient but is toxic to both humans and animals at high concentrations (NAS, 1991). Long-term adverse effects from ingestion by humans have not been studied thoroughly. EPA has determined that the evidence of carcinogenicity of selenium in both humans and animals isinadequate and, therefore, has assigned this metal a D carcinogenicity classification (IRIS, 1999).
Selenium is frequently detected in ground and surface waters in most regions of the United States and has been detected in marine fish and shellfish (NOAA,**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-21 **Figure 4-1. States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for mercury**

.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-22 1987, 1989a) and in freshwater fish (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990) from several areas nationwide. In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 315 composite samples of whole fish from 109 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). The authors reported the maximum, geometric mean, and 85 th percentileconcentrations for selenium were 2.30, 0.42, and 0.73 ppm (wet weight), respectively. Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of selenium concentrations in bottom-feeding and predator fish using the 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study. Mean selenium tissue concentrations (whole fish samples) were not significantly different in bottom feeders (0.50 ± 0.41 ppm) as compared to predator fish (0.50 ± 0.42 ppm). Like cadmium, concentrations of selenium declined in fish tissues between 1976 and 1984 (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990).
In a more recent study (May 1993 to January 1994), selenium concentrations in the tissues of fish from the Pigeon River and Pigeon Lake in Michigan were examined. Mean selenium concentrations in white sucker fillets were 0.49 ± 0.19, 1.8 ± 0.96, and 1.7 ± 0.80 ppm (wet weight) in samples taken from the Upper Pigeon River, Lower Pigeon River, and Pigeon Lake, respectively. At these same locations, northern pike fillets contained selenium concentrations of 0.88 ± 0.22, 1.1 ± 0.91, and 2.2 ± 0.90 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Besser et al., 1996). This study was conducted to assess the potential hazard of selenium leaching from a coal fly ash disposal area.
Selenium was monitored in four national fish contaminant monitoring programs reviewed by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). Definitive information concerning the chemical forms of selenium found in fish and shellfish is not available (NAS, 1976, 1991).
In 1993, five states (California, Colorado, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah) had issued advisories for selenium contamination in fish (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were 11 advisories in effect in these same five states for this heavy metal (U.S. EPA, 1999c). These advisories include one wildlife advisory in Nevada for selenium in several species of waterfowl. Selenium should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish monitoring programs in areas where it occurs in geologic formations (particularly in the western and southwestern states) and near sites where oil or coal combustion currently occurs or historically has occurred.
**4.3.1.5 Tributyltin Compounds**

**—** Tributyltin compounds belong to the organometallic family of tin compounds that have been used as biocides, disinfectants, and antifoulants. Antifoulant paints containing tributyltin compounds were first registered for use in the United States in the early 1960s (Appendix F). Tributyltin compounds are used in paints applied to boat and ship hulls as well as to crab pots, fishing nets, and buoys to retard the growth of fouling organisms. These compounds were also registered for use as wood preservatives, disinfectants, and biocides in cooling towers, pulp and paper mills, breweries, leather processing facilities, and textile mills (U.S. EPA, 1988c).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-23 Tributyltin compounds are acutely toxic to aquatic organisms at concentrations below 1 ppb and are chronically toxic to aquatic organisms at concentrations as low as 0.002 ppb (U.S. EPA, 1988c). EPA initiated a Special Review of tributyltin compounds used as antifoulants in January of 1986 based on concerns over its adverse effects on nontarget aquatic species. Shortly thereafter the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act (OAPCA) was enacted in J une 1988, which contained interim and permanent tributyltin use restrictions as well as environmental monitoring, research, and reporting requirements. The Act established interim release rate restrictions under which only tributyltin-containing products that do not exceed an average daily release rate of 4 micrograms organotin/cm 2 -d can be sold or used. The OAPCA also contained a permanent provision to prohibit the application of tributyltin antifouling paints to non-aluminum vessels under 25 meters (82 feet) long (U.S. EPA, 1988c).
Tributyltin oxide appears to be toxic to animals, with oral LD 50 s ranging between 52 and 194 mg/kg (ATSDR, 1992; HSDB, 1999; WHO, 1999). Immunotoxicity is the critical effect produced by chronic exposure to tributyltin. Insufficient data are available to evaluate the carcinogenicity of tributyltin oxide compounds; therefore, EPA has listed this compound in Group D (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999).
Tributyltins have been found to bioaccumulate in fish, bivalve mollusks, and crustaceans. Bioconcentration factors have been reported to range from 200 to 4,300 for finfish, from 2,000 to 6,000 for bivalves, and a BCF value of 4,400 was reported for crustaceans (U.S. EPA, 1988c). Tributyltin used to control marine fouling organisms in an aquaculture rearing pen has been found to bioaccumulate in fish tissue (Short and Thrower, 1987a and 1987b). Tsuda et al. (1988) reported a BCF value of 501 for tributyltin in carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) muscle tissue. Martin et al. (1989) reported a similar BCF value of 406 for tributyltin in rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri ) and Ward et al. (1981) reported a BCF value of 520 for the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ). In an environmental monitoring study conducted in England, a BCF value of 1,000 was reported for tributyltin in seed oysters ( Crassostrea gigas ) (Ebdon et al., 1989).
Tributyltin was not monitored in any national fish contaminant monitoring program evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). In 1993, only one state, Oregon, had an advisory in effect for tributyltin contamination in shellfish (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no active fish advisories in effect for tributyltin, since the advisory in Oregon was rescinded (U.S. EPA, 1999c).
Tributyltin compounds should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs, particularly in states with coastal waters, states bordering the Great Lakes, or states with large rivers where large ocean-going vessels are used for commerce. Tributyltin concentrations have been reported to be highest in areas of heavy boating and shipping activities including shipyards, drydocks, and marinas where tributyltin-containing antifouling paints are often removed and reapplied. Before recoating, old paint containing tributyltin residues is scraped from the vessel hull and these paint scrapings are sometimes washed into the water adjacent to the boat or shipyard despite the tributyltin label**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-24 prohibiting this practice (U.S. EPA, 1988c). Tributyltin should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of tributyltin, particularly with respect to its uses in antifouling paints and wood preservatives.
**4.3.2 Organochlorine Pesticides**
The following organochlorine pesticides and metabolites are recommended astarget analytes in screening studies: total chlordane (sum of cis- and transchlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane), total DDT (sum of 2,4 ’

- and 4,4 ’ -homologues of DDT, DDD, and DDE), dicofol, dieldrin, endosulfan I and II, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, lindane (  -hexachlorocyclohexane), mirex, and toxaphene (see Appendix F). Mirex is of particular concern in the Great Lakes states and the southeast states (NAS, 1991). All of thesecompounds are neurotoxins and most are known or suspected human carcinogens (IRIS, 1999; Sax, 1984).
With the exception of endosulfan I and II, dicofol, and total DDT, each of the pesticides on the recommended target analyte list (Table 4-1) had been included in at least four major fish contaminant monitoring programs (Appendix E), and seven of the compounds had triggered at least one state fish consumption advisory in 1993 (Table 4-2). Although use of some of these pesticides has been terminated or suspended within the United States for over 25 years (Appendix F), these compounds still require long-term monitoring. Many of the organochlorine pesticides that are now banned were used in large quantities for over a decade and are still present in sediments at high concentrations. These organochlorine pesticides are not easily degraded or metabolized and, therefore, persist in the environment. These compounds are either insoluble or have relatively low solubility in water, but are quite lipid-soluble. Because these compounds are not readily metabolized or excreted from the body and are readily stored in fatty tissues, they can bioaccumulate to high concentrations through aquatic food chains to secondary consumers (e.g., fish, piscivorous birds, and mammals including humans).
Pesticides may enter aquatic ecosystems from point source industrial discharges or from nonpoint sources such as aerial drift and/or runoff from agricultural use areas, leaching from landfills, or accidental spills or releases. Agricultural runoff from crop and grazing lands is considered to be the major source of pesticides in water, with industrial waste (effluents) from pesticide manufacturing the next most common source (Li, 1975). Significant atmospheric transport of pesticides to aquatic ecosystems can also result from aerial drift of pesticides, volatilization from applications in terrestrial environments, and wind erosion of treated soil (Li, 1975). Once in water, pesticide residues may become adsorbed to susp ended material, deposited in bottom sediment, or absorbed by organisms in which they are detoxified and eliminated or accumulated (Nimmo, 1985).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-25 The reader should note that three of the organochlorine pesticides still have active registrations: endosulfan, lindane, and dicofol. These pesticides are much less persistent in the environment and have a lower bioaccumulation potential than the banned organochlorines. However, agricultural runoff particularly during the period immediately after field application could result in significant levels of these pesticides in fish and shellfish tissues. States should contact their appropriate state agencies to obtain information on both the historic and current uses of these pesticides.
**4.3.2.1 Chlordane (Total)**

**—** Chlordane is a multipurpose insecticide that has been used extensively in home and agricultural applications in the United States for the control of termites and many other insects (Appendix F). This pesticide is similar in chemical structure to dieldrin, although less toxic (Toxicity Class II), and has been classified as a probable human carcinogen (B2) by EPA (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999; Worthing, 1991).
Although the last labeled use of chlordane as a termiticide was phased out in the United States beginning in 1975, it has been monitored in seven national fish contaminant programs evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E) and has been widely detected in freshwater fish (Schmitt et al., 1990) and in both estuarine/marine finfish (NOAA, 1987) and marine bivalves (NOAA, 1989a) at concentrations of human health concern. In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt et al., 1990). These authors reported the maximum and geometric mean concentrations for the five major degradation products of chlordane ( cis

chlordane, trans -chlordane, cis -nonachlor, trans -nonachlor, and oxychlordane) were 0.66 and 0.03 ppm, 0.35 and 0.02 ppm, 0.45 and 0.02 ppm, 1.00 and 0.30 ppm, and 0.29 and 0.01 ppm (wet weight), respectively. Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study on the major constituents of chlordane (including cis - and trans -chlordane, cis - and trans

nonachlor, and oxychlordane) in bottom-feeding and predator fish species. The authors reported there was no significant difference in residues in these two trophic groups of fish except for concentrations of trans -chlordane, which were significantly higher in the tissues of bottom feeders. Mean tissue concentrations of cis - and trans -chlordane, cis - and trans -nonachlor, and oxychlordane were 0.03 ± 0.06, 0.02 ± 0.04, 0.02 ± 0.04, 0.03 ± 0.01, and 0.01 ± 0.02 ppm, respectively, for bottom feeders as compared to 0.02 ± 0.04, 0.01 ± 0.02, 0.02 ± 0.03, 0.03 ± 0.06, and 0.01 ± 0.01 ppm, respectively, for predator species (Kidwell et al., 1995).

The cis - and trans -isomers of chlordane and cis - and trans -isomers of nonachlor, which are primary constituents of technical-grade chlordane, and oxychlordane, the major metabolite of chlordane, were also monitored as part of the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d ). These compounds were detected in fish tissue at the following percentage of the 362**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-26 sites surveyed: cis -chlordane (64 percent), trans -chlordane (61 percent), cis

nonachlor (35 percent), trans -nonachlor (77 percent), and oxychlordane (27 percent) (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). The maximum, arithmetic mean, and median concentrations (wet weight) of cis -chlordane, trans -chlordane, cis -nonachlor, trans -nonachlor, and oxychlordane are summarized in Table 4-5. Mean total chlordane residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.067 ppm), white sucker (0.018 ppm), and channel catfish (0.054 ppm) as compared to predator fish such as largemouth bass (0.029 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.004 ppb), and walleye (0.004 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994).

In 1993, 120 fish advisories in 24 states had been issued as a result of chlordane contamination (see Figure 4-2). As of 1998, there were 104 advisories in effect in 22 states for this pesticide, and New York currently has a statewide advisory for chlordane in all waterfowl (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Because of its extensive use in termite control and its widespread detection in fish tissues, total chlordane (i.e., sum of cis - and trans -chlordane, cis - and trans -nonachlor, and oxychlordane) should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs (NAS, 1991). Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acr eage where chlordane was used historically. In suburban/urban watersheds, the degree of historic use of chlordane as a termiticide around domestic structures should also be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic sites of chlordane production, formulation, or packaging facilities.
**4.3.2.2 DDT (Total)**

**—** Although the use of DDT was terminated in the United States in 1972, DDT and its DDE and DDD metabolites persist in the environment and are known to bioaccumulate (Ware, 1978). DDT, DDD, and DDE have all been classified by EPA as probable human carcinogens (B2) (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999).

**Table 4-5. Chlordane Constituent Concentrations a**  **Detected in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish** 
**Chlordane constituent or**  **metabolite Maximum Arithmetic mean Median**
cis -Chlordane 0.378 0.021 0.004

trans -Chlordane 0.310 0.017 0.003
cis -Nonachlor 0.127 0.009 ND

trans -Nonachlor 0.477 0.031 0.009 Oxychlordane 0.243 0.005 ND ND = Not detected.

a Concentrations are in ppm (micrograms/g) on a wet weight basis.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1992c,1992d.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-27 **Figure 4-2. States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for chlordane. 4. TARGET ANALYTES** 

4-28 DDT or its metabolites have been included as target analytes in as many asseven major fish and shellfish monitoring programs (Appendix E) and contamination has been found to be widespread (NOAA, 1987, 1989a; Schmitt et al., 1990). In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt et al., 1990). Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of DDT, DDE, and DDD in 1984 were 1.79 and 0.03 ppm, 4.74 and 0.19 ppm, and 2.55 and 0.06 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al., 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study on DDT and its major metabolites (DDE and DDD) in bottom-feeding and predator fish. The authors reported that there was no significant difference in residues in these two trophic groups of fish. Mean tissue concentrations of DDT, DDE, and DDD were 0.03 ± 0.14, 0.21 ± 0.46, and 0.07 ± 0.21 ppm for bottom feeders as compared to 0.03 ± 0.06, 0.24 ± 0.55, and 0.06 ± 0.14 ppm for predator species, respectively. DDE, the only DDT metabolite surveyed in fish tissue in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, was detected at more sites than any other single chemical pollutant (99 percent of the 362 sites sampled) (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median concentrations of DDE were 14, 0.295, and 0.058 ppm (wet weight), respectively. Mean DDE residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.42 ppm), white sucker (0.08 ppm), and channel catfish (0.63 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.06 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.03 ppb), and walleye (0.03 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994). In 1993, eight states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Texas) and the territory of American Samoa had fish consumption advisories in effect for DDT or its metabolites (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were 34 advisories in effect in 11 states and the territory of American Samoa for DDT and/or one of its metabolites, DDE or DDD (U.S. EPA, 1999c). In addition, New York has a statewide DDT advisory in effect for mer gansers. Because of the extensive national use of this compound and its widespread detection in fish tissues, total DDT (i.e., sum of the 4,4'- and 2,4'-homologues of DDT and of its metabolites, DDE and DDD) should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where DDT was applied historically. In suburban/urban watersheds, the degree of historic use of DDT in domestic home and garden applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic sites of DDT production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.2.3 Dicofol**

**—** Dicofol, one of the three organochlorine target analytes with an active registration, is a miticide/pesticide that was first registered for use in 1957. Currently, dicofol is used primarily on cotton, apples, and citrus crops, mostly in California and Florida (U.S. EPA, 1998c). Dicofol is considered a DDT analog based on its structure and activity (Hayes and Laws, 1991). In the past, dicofol often contained 9 to 15 percent DDT and its analogs. In 1989, EPA required that these contaminants constitute less than 0.1 percent of dicofol (HSDB, 1 993).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-29 Historically, dicofol has been used to control mites on cotton and citrus (60 percent), on apples (10 percent), on ornamental plants and turf (10 percent), and on a variety of other agricultural products (20 percent) including pears, apricots, and cherries ( Farm Chemical Handbook , 1989), as a seed crop soil treatment, on vegetables (e.g., beans and corn), and on shade trees (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d).
Dicofol is moderately toxic to laboratory rats and has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class III based on an oral LD 50 of 587 mg/kg in rats (U.S. EPA, 1998d) (Appendix F). Technical-grade dicofol induced hepatocellular (liver) carcinomas in male mice; however, results were negative in female mice and in rats (NCI, 1978) and in a second 2-year feeding study in both sexes of rats (U.S. EPA, 1998d). EPA has classified dicofol as a possible human carcinogen (C) (Appendix G) (U.S. EPA, 1998c).
Dicofol was recommended for monitoring by the EPA Office of Water as part of the Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters Program and has been included in two other national monitoring programs(see Appendix E). Experimental evidence indicates this compound bioaccumulates extensively in bluegill sunfish (BCF from 6,600 to 17,000) (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
In the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish, dicofol was detected at 16 percent of the 374 sites monitored (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median dicofol concentrations (wet weight basis) were 0.074 ppm, 0.001 ppm, and ND (not detectable). Dicofol concentrations were greater than the quantification limit (0.0025 ppm) in samples from only 7 percent of the sites. Most of the sites where dicofol was detected were in agricultural areas where citrus and other fruits and vegetables are grown (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). It should be noted that this national study did not specifically target agricultural sites where this pesticide historically had been or currently was used. Dicofol residues in fish could be much higher if sampling were targeted for pesticide runoff, particularly during the period immediately after field application. Mean dicofol residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.88 ppm), white sucker (0.48 ppm), and channel catfish (0.59 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.20 ppm), smallmouth bass (not detected), and walleye (not detected) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, however, no consumption advisories were in effect for dicofol (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Dicofol should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs, in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate state agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where dicofol is currently used and was used historically. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of dicofol production, formulation, or packaging facilities.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-30 **4.3.2.4 Dieldrin**

**—** Dieldrin is a chlorinated cyclodiene that was widely used in the United States from1950 to 1974 as a broad spectrum pesticide, primarily on termites and other soildwelling insects and on cotton, corn, and citrus crops. Because the toxicity of this persistent pesticide posed an imminent danger to human health, EPA banned the production and most major uses of dieldrin in 1974, and, in 1987, all uses of dieldrin were voluntarily canceled by industry (see Appendix F).
Dieldrin has been classified by EPA as a pro bable human carci nogen (B2) (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999) and has been identified as a human neurotoxin (ATSDR, 1991). Dieldrin has been included in seven national monitoring programs (Appendix E) and has been detected nationwide in freshwater finfish (Schmitt et al., 1990) and estuarine/marine finfish and shellfish (NOAA, 1987, 1989a). Because it is a metabolite of aldrin, the environmental concentrations of dieldrin are a cumulative result of the historic use of both aldrin and dieldrin (Schmitt et al., 1990).
In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program. Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of dieldrin in 1984 were 1.39 and 0.04 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al., 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study on dieldrin in bottom-feeding and predator fish. These authors reported there was no significant difference in residues in these two trophic groups of fish. Mean tissue concentrations of dieldrin were 0.05 ± 0.14 ppm for bottom feeders as compared to 0.04 ± 0.10 ppm for predator species. Dieldrin was also detected in fish tissue at 60 percent of the 362 sites surveyed as part of the EPA National Survey of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median concentrations of dieldrin in fish tissues were 0.450, 0.028, and 0.004 ppm (wet weight), respectively. Mean dieldrin residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.045 ppm), white sucker (0.023 ppm), and channel catfish (0.015 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.005 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.002 ppm), and walleye (0.002 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, three states (Arizona, Illinois, and Nebraska) had issued advisories for dieldrin contamination in fish (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were 23 advisories in effect in six states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Texas) for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Dieldrin should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use as well as the use of aldrin have been extensive. States should contact their appropriate state agencies to obtain information on the historic uses of these two pesticides. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where dieldrin and aldrin were applied since dieldrin is a degradation product of aldrin. In suburban/urban watersheds, the degree of historic use of dieldrin and aldrin in domestic home and garden**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-31 applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic sites of dieldrin and aldrin production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.2.5 Endosulfan**

**—** Endosulfan is a chlorinated cyclodiene pesticide that is currently in wide use primarily as a noncontact insecticide for seed and soil treatments (Appendix F). Two stereohomologues (I and II) exist and exhibit approximately equal effectiveness and toxicity (Worthing, 1991).
Endosulfan is highly toxic to laboratory animals and has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class I (U.S. EPA, 1998d). To date, no studies have been found concerning carcinogenicity in humans after oral exposure to endosulfan (ATSDR, 1998c). EPA has classified endosulfan as Gr oup E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans (U.S. EPA, 1999b).
Agricultural runoff is the primary source of this pesticide in aquatic ecosystems. Endosulfan has been shown to be highly toxic to fish and marine invertebrates and is readily absorbed in sediments. It therefore represents a potential hazard in the aquatic environment (Sittig, 1980). However, data are insufficient to assess nationwide endosulfan contamination (NAS, 1991). Endosulfan has been included in one national fish contaminant monitoring program

— the U.S. EPA 301(h) Program

— the (U.S. EPA 301(h) Program

— evaluated by the 1993 EPA Workgroup (Appendix E); however, no information was located related to its concentrations in fish or shellfish tissue.
In 1993, no consumption advisories were in effect for endosulfan I or II (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Endosulfan I and II should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where endosulfan currently is used and was used historically. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of endosulfan production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.2.6 Endrin**

**—** Endrin is a chlorinated cyclodiene that historically was widely used as a broad spectrum pesticide. Endrin was first registered for use in the United States in 1951. However, recognition of its long-term persistence in soil and its high levels of mammalian toxicity led to restriction of its use beginning in 1964 and 1979 (U.S. EPA, 1980a; 44 FR 43632) and to final cancellation of its registration in 1984 (U.S. EPA, 1984a) (Appendix F).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-32 Endrin is highly toxic to humans (EPA Toxicity Class I) (U.S. EPA, 1998d), with acute exposures affecting the central nervous system primarily (Sax, 1984). At present, evidence of both animal and human carcinogenicity of endrin is considered inadequate, and EPA has classified endrin in Group D, not classifisable as to human carcinogenicity insufficient information available (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999).
Although endrin has been included in five national fish contaminant monitoring programs (Appendix E), it has not been found widely throughout the United States. In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt et al., 1990). Endrin was detected in freshwater fish at only 29 percent of 112 stations sampled in the NCBP study. Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of endrin in 1984 were 0.22 and <0.01 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al. 1990). Endrin was also detected in freshwater and marine species at 11 percent of the 362 sites surveyed in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median concentrations of endrin in fish tissues were 0.162 ppm, 0.002 ppm, and not detectable (wet weight), respectively. Mean endrin residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.0014 ppm), white sucker (0.0002 ppm), and channel catfish (0.009 ppm) as compared to predatory species such as largemouth bass (not detectable), smallmouth bass (not detectable), and walleye (not detectable) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, no state had issued a fish advisory for endrin (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Endrin should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where endrin was used historically. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic sites of endrin production, formulation, or packaging facilities.
**4.3.2.7 Heptachlor Epoxide**

**—** Heptachlor epoxide is not a formulated pesticide but is a metabolic degradation product of the pesticides heptachlor and chlordane. It is also found as a contaminant in heptachlor and chlordane formulations (Appendix F). Heptachlor epoxide is also more toxic than either parent compound (ATSDR, 1993). Heptachlor has been used as a persistent, nonsystemic contact and ingested insecticide on soils (particularly for termite control) and seeds and as a household insecticide (Worthing, 1991). EPA susp ended the major uses of heptachlor in 1978 (ATSDR, 1993). Acute exposures to high doses of heptachlor epoxide in humans can cause central nervous system effects (e.g., irritability, dizziness, muscle tremors, and convulsions (U.S. EPA, 1986c). In animals, liver, kidney, and blood disorders can occur (IRIS, 1999). Exposure to this compound**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-33 produced an increased incidence of liver carcinomas in rats and mice and hepatomas in female rats (IRIS, 1999). Heptachlor epoxide has been classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen (B2) (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999).
Heptachlor epoxide has been included in six national fish monitoring programs (Appendix E) and has been detected widely in freshwater finfish (Schmitt et al., 1990), but infrequently in bivalves and marine fish (NOAA, 1987, 1989a). In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt et al., 1990). Heptachlor epoxide was detected in freshwater fish at 49 percent of 112 stations sampled in the NCBP study. Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of heptachlor epoxide in 1984 were 0.29 and 0.01 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al., 1990). Heptachlor epoxide also was detected in fish tissue at 16 percent of the 362 sites where it was surveyed in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish(U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median concentrations of heptachlor epoxide were 0.063 ppm, 0.002 ppm, and not detectable (wet weight). It should be noted that one of the parent compounds, heptachlor was detected at only 2 percent of the 362 sites where it was surveyed at a maximum, arithmetic mean, and median concentration of 0.076, 0.0004 ppm, and not detectable, respectively. The five degradation products of chlordane were detected at from 27 to 77 percent of these same sites (see Section 4.3.2.1 for a discussion of chlordane). Mean heptachlor epoxide residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0. 004 ppm), white sucker (0.001 ppm), and channel catfish (0.0005 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.0003 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.00007 ppm), and walleye (0.0002 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, only Nebraska had fish advisories for heptachlor epoxide contamination (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there was only one advisory in effect, in Texas, for this pesticide degradation product (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Heptachlor epoxide should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish monitoring programs in areas where the use of heptachlor or chlordane have been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic uses of these pesticides. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where heptachlor and chlordane were historically used since both of these pesticides degrade to heptachlor epoxide. In suburban/urban watersheds, the degree of historic use of heptachlor and chlordane in domestic home and gar den applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds also should be reviewed to identify historic sites of heptachlor and chlordane production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.2.8 Hexachlorobenzene**

**—** Hexachlorobenzene is a fungicide that was widely used as a seed protectant in the United States until 1984 (Appendix F). The use of hexachlorobenzene and the presence of hexachlorobenzene residues in food are banned in many countries**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-34 including the United States (Worthing, 1991). Registration of hexachlorobenzene as a pesticide was voluntarily canceled in 1984 (Morris and Cabral, 1986).
The toxicity of this compound is minimal; it has been given an EPA toxicity classification of IV (i.e., oral LD 50 greater than 5,000 ppm in laboratory animals (U.S. EPA, 1998d). However, nursing infants are particularly susceptible to hexachlorobenzene poisoning as lactational transfer can increase infant tissue levels to two to five times maternal tissue levels (ATSDR, 1996). Hexachlorobenzene is a known animal carcinogen (ATSDR, 1996) and has been classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen (B2) (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999).
Of the chlorinated benzenes, hexachlorobenzene is the most widely monitored (Worthing, 1991). It was included as a target analyte in seven of the major monitoring programs reviewed by the 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt et al., 1990). Hexachlorobenzene was detected in freshwater fish at 19 percent of 112 stations sampled in the NCBP study. Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of hexachlorobenzene in 1984 were 0.41 and <0.01 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al., 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP on hexachlorobenzene in bottom-feeding and predator fish. The authors reported that there was no significant difference in residues in these two trophic groups. Mean tissue concentrations of HCB were 0.00 ± 0.01 and 0.01 ± 0.04 ppm, respectively, for bottom feeders and predator species. Hexachlorobenzene also was detected in fish tissue at 46 percent of the 362 sites where it was surveyed in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic m ean, and median concentrations were 0.913 ppm,0.006 ppm, and not detectable (wet weight), respectively. Mean hexachlorobenzene residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.0036 ppm), white sucker (0.0036 ppm), and channel catfish (0.0024 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.0002 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.0004 ppm), and walleye (0.0001 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, Louisiana and Ohio had issued advisories for hexachlorobenzene contamination in fish and shellfish (RTI, 1993). As of 1988, there were three advisories in effect in these two states for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Hexachlorobenzene should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish monitoring programs. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where hexachlorobenzene was historically used. Sites in industrial watersheds also s hould bereviewed to identify historic sites of hexachlorobenzene as well as other organochlorine pesticide production, formulation, or packaging facilities since hexachlorobenzene was used as an intermediate in the chemical synthesis of many organochlorine pesticides.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-35 **4.3.2.9 Lindane**

**—** Lindane is a mixture of homologues of hexachlorocyclohexane (C 6 H 6 Cl 6 ), whose major component ( 99 percent) is the gamma isomer. It is commonly referred to as either  -HCH (hexachlorocyclohexane) or  -BHC (benzene hexachloride). Lindane is used primarily in seed treatments, soil treatments for tobacco transplants, foliage applications on fruit and nut trees and vegetables, and wood and timber protection. Lindane is used as a therapeutic scabicide, pediculicide, and ectoparasiticide for humans and animals (Merck Index 1989). Since 1985, many uses of lindane have been banned or restricted (see A ppendix F) and its application is permitted only under supervision of a certified applicator (U.S. EPA, 1985c). In 1993, EPA issued a “ Notice of Receipt of a Request for Amendments to Delete Uses ” for several formulations of lindane provider, 99.5 percent technical, and dust concentrate, which would delete from the pesticide label most uses of lindane for agricultural crops and use on animals and humans (EPA 1993).
Lindane is a neurotoxin (assigned to EPA Toxicity Class II) (U.S. EPA, 1998d) and has been found to cause aplastic anemia in humans (Worthing, 1991). Lindane has been classified by EPA as a probable/possible human carcinogen (B2/C) (Appendix G) (U.S. EPA, 1999b).
Lindane has been included in seven major fish contaminant monitoring programs (Appendix E). This pesticide has been detected in freshwater fish (Schmitt et al., 1990) and in marine fish and bivalves (NOAA, 1987, 1989a) nationwide. In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt et al., 1990). Lindane was detected in freshwater fish at 47 percent of 112 stations sampled in the NCBP study. Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of lindane in 1984 were 0.40 and <0.01 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al., 1990). Kidwell et al. (1 995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study on lindane in bottom-feeding and predator fish. These authors reported there was no significant difference in residues in these two trophic groups of fish. Lindane also was detected in fish tissue at 42 percent of 362 sites surveyed in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median lindane concentrations were 0.083 ppm, 0.003 ppm, and not detectable (wet weight), respectively. Mean lindane residues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0. 0043 ppm), white sucker (0.0017 ppm), and channel catfish (0.0032 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.00007 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.00015 ppm), and walleye (not detectable) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, alth ough it had been widely monitored and widely detected, no consumption advisories were in effect for lindane (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Lindane should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish monitoring programs in areas where its use has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-36 agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where lindane was used historically. In suburban/ urban watersheds, the degree of historic use of lindane in domestic home and garden applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of li ndane production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.2.10 Mirex**

**—** Mirex is a chlorinated cyclodiene pesticide that was used in large quantities in the United States from 1962 through 1975 primarily for control of fire ants in the Southeast and Gulf Coast states and, more widely, under the name Dechlorane as a fire retardant and polymerizing agent in plastics (Kaiser, 1978; Kutz et al., 1985) (Appendix F).
Mirex has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class II on the basis of an oral LD 50 in rats of 368 mg/kg (ATSDR, 1995; U.S. EPA, 1998d) (Appendix F). Mirex has been assigned a carci nogenicity classification of group B2, probable human carcinogen (HEAST, 1997). EPA instituted restrictions on the use of mirex in 1975, and, thereafter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) suspended the fire ant control program (Hodges, 1977).
Mirex has been included in seven major fish contami nant monitoring programs (Appendix E). It has been found primarily in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes regions (Kutz et al., 1985; NAS, 1991; Schmitt et al., 1990). In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (NCBP) (Schmitt et al., 1990). Mirex was detected in freshwater fish at 13 percent of 112 stations sampled in the NCBP study. Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of mirex in 1984 were 0.44 and <0.01 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al., 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study on mirex in bottom-feeding and predator fish. These authors reported there was no significant difference in residues in these two trophic groups of fish. Mean tissue concentrations of mirex were 0.00 ± 0.04 and 0.01 + 0.05 ppm, respectively, for bottom feeders and predator species. Mirex also was detected in fish tissue at 38 percent of 362 sites surveyed in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (NSCRF) (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median mirex concentrations were 0.225 ppm, 0.004 ppm, and not detectable (wet weight), respectively. Mean mirex residues from the EPA NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.0037 ppm), white sucker (0.0044 ppm), and channel catfish (0.0146 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.0002 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.002 ppm), and walleye (0.00008 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, three states (New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) had issued fish advisories for mirex (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were 11 advisories in effect**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-37 in these same three states for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). New York has a statewide advisory in effect for mergansers. Mirex should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish monitoring programs in areas where its use has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where mirex was used historically. In suburban/urban watersheds, the degree of historic use of mirex in domestic home and garden applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic sites of mirex production, formulation, or packaging facilities.
**4.3.2.11 Toxaphene**

**—** Toxaphene is an organochlorine pesticide composed of a complex mixture of chlorinated camphenes (chlorinated bornanes and some bornenes) that was first registered for use in the United States in 1947. It was commercially produced by the chlorination of camphenes derived from pine trees. It has been estimated that the commercial mixture of toxaphene contained at least 670 congeners with the majority of these having 6 to 10 chlorines (Jansson and Wideqvist, 1983). Historically, this compound was used in the United States as an insecticide primarily on cotton (Hodges, 1977). In addition, tox aphene was used as a piscicide for rough fish in the 1950s and 1960s in North America and was the replacement for DDT after DDT ’ s use was severely restricted in 1972 (Saleh, 1991). Partly as a consequence of the ban on the use of DDT imposed in 1972, toxaphene was for many years the most heavily used pesticide in the United States (Eichers et al., 1978). In 1982, toxaphene's registration for most uses was canceled (47 FR 53784) and all uses were banned in 1990 (55 FR 31164-31174). Toxaphene is a global pollutant whose chemical-physical properties make it a candidate for long-range atmospheric transport via the cold condensation effect once it is released into the environment (Wania and Mackay, 1993, 1996).
Like many of the other organochlorine pesticides, toxaphene has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class II (U.S. EPA, 1998d) (Appendix F). Some components of toxaphene may accumulate in body fat. Toxaphene has been classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen (B2) (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999).
Toxaphene has been included in four major fish contaminant monitoring programs (Appendix E). It has been detected frequently in both freshwater fish (Schmitt et al., 1990) and estuarine species (NOAA, 1989a) but is only consistently found in Georgia, Texas, and California (NAS, 1991). In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 321 composite samples of whole fish from 112 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt et al., 1990). Toxaphene was detected in freshwater fish at 69 percent of 112 stations sampled in the NCBP study. Maximum and geometric mean tissue concentrations of toxaphene in 1984 were 8.2 and 0.14 ppm (wet weight), respectively (Schmitt et al., 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study on toxaphene in bottom-feeding and predatory fish species. These authors reported there was no significant difference**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-38 in residues in these two trophic groups of fish. Mean tissue concentrations of toxaphene were 0.19 ± 0.63 and 0.17 + 0.35 ppm, respectively, for bottom feeders and predator species.
In 1993, two states (Arizona and Texas) had fish advisories in effect for toxaphene (RTI, 1993). As of 1988, there were six advisories in effect in four states (Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas) for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Toxaphene should be considered for inclusion in all state fish and shellfish monitoring programs in areas where its use has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where toxaphene was used historically. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic sites of toxaphene production, formulation, or packaging facilities.
**4.3.3 Organophosphate Pesticides**
The following organophosphate pesticides are recommended as target analytes in screening studies: chlorpyrifos, diazinon, disulfoton, ethion, and terbufos (Appendix E). These pesticides share two distinct features that differentiate them from the organochlorines. Organophosphate pesticides are generally more acutely toxic to vertebrates than organochlorine pesticides and exert their toxic action by inhibiting the activity of cholinesterase (ChE), one of the vital nervous system enzymes. In addition, organophosphates are chemically unstable (they are all slowly hydrolyzed by water) and thus are less persistent in the environment. It is this latter feature that made them attractive alternatives to the organochlorine pesticides that were used extensively in agriculture from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
With the exception of chlorpyrifos, none of the organophosphates has been included in any of the nati onal fish contaminant monitoring programs evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup and none of these pesticides (including chlorpyrifos) has triggered state fish consumption advisories. All of the organophosphate pesticides have active pesticide registrations and have been recommended for monitoring because they have an EPA Toxicity Classification of I or II (Appendix F), BCFs >300, and a half-life of 30 days or more in the environment and their use profiles suggest they could be potential problems in some agricultural watersheds.
The target organophosphates are used in agriculture thr oughout the United States, particularly in areas under intensive cultivation (row crops, orchards, fruits, and vegetables). Bioconcentration studies indicate they can accumulate in fish and, because they are known human neurotoxins, the potential exists for human health effects from consuming contaminated fish. For this reason, federal regulations are in effect that set maximum application rates and minimize use near waterbodies. At the time of this writing, no fish consumption advisories for these target analytes have yet been issued; however, state agencies should be aware of special circumstances that could result in their accumulation in fish. In**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-39 addition to chemical spills and misapplications, heavy and repeated rainfall shortly after application may wash pesticides off of plants and into streams. Signs of acute organophosphate pollution may include erratic swimming behavior in fish or fish kills.
States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on both the historic and current uses of these pesticides. With the exception of ethion, which is used almost exclusively on citrus, the target organophosphates are used on a wide variety of crops. In addition, chlorpyrifos and diazinon have significant uses in domestic and commercial pest control in suburban/urban areas (Robinson et al., 1994). If a state determines that high concentrations of these pesticides may be present in its agricultural watersheds, sampling should be conducted during late spring or early summer within 1 to 2 months following pesticide application to maximize detection of these compounds in fish tissues. In general, the organophosphates are degraded relatively rapidly in the environment and metabolized relatively rapidly by fish, so timing of the sampling program is a more important consideration for this class of pesticides. Additional discussion of appropriate sampling times for fish contaminant monitoring programs is provided in Section 6.1.1.5.
All of the target organophosphates are members of the organothiophosphate group of insecticides. They are all metabolized in the liver to their active form, referred to as an “ oxon ” (e.g., chlorpyrifos is activated to chlorpyrifos oxon) (Klaasen, 1996). The oxons are approximately 300- to 1,000-fold more toxic than the parent compounds; however, they are also less lipid-soluble than the parent compounds and, therefore, are expected to be less likely to bioaccumulate in fish tissue. In another laboratory study where chlorpyrifos was fed to channel catfish, only chlorpyrifos and its inactive metabolites were found; the oxon was not detected in any tissue (Barron et al., 1991). No information is available on the presence of the oxon metabolites in fish tissue for the other organophosphates.

**Note:** The potential human toxicity of the organophosphates is undergoing reassessment by EPA at this time as a result of the provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. For more information, consult the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs webpage available on the Internet at: **http://www.epa.gov.pesticides/op**

. **4.3.3.1 Chlorpyrifos**

**—** This organophosphate pesticide was first introduced in 1965 to replace the more persistent organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT) (U.S. EPA, 1986c) and has been used for a broad range of insecticide applications (Appendix F). Chlorpyrifos is used primarily to control soil and foliar insects on cotton, peanuts, and sorghum(Worthing, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1986c). Chlorpyrifos is also used to control rootinfesting and boring insects on a variety of fruits (e.g., apples, bananas, citrus, grapes), nuts (e.g., almonds, walnuts), vegetables (e.g., beans, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, peas, and soybeans), and field crops (e.g., alfalfa and corn) (U.S. EPA, 1984c). As a household insecticide, chlorpyrifos has been**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-40 used to control ants, cockroaches, fleas, and mosquitoes (Worthing, 1991) and is registered for use in controlling subsurface termites in California (U.S. EPA, 1983a). Based on use application, 48 percent of chlorpyrifos use is agricultural and 52 percent is nonagricultural (U.S. EPA, 2000b). Chlorpyrifos is also used by the general public for home, lawn, and garden insect control (ATSDR, 1997).
Note: As a result of the reassessment conducted under the Food Quality Act of 1996, use patterns of chlorpyrifos will change significantly by the end of 2001. In particular, virtually all indoor and outdoor residential use will end, as well as all agricultural use on tomatoes. Agricultural use of chlorpyrifos on apples and grapes will be reduced substantially (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Chlorpyrifos has a moderate mammalian toxicity and has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class II based on oral feeding studies (U.S. EPA, 1998d). No carcinogenicity was found in chronic feeding studies with rats, mice, and dogs (U.S. EPA, 1983a). Because chlorpyrifos did not increase the incidence of cancer in feeding studies on rats and mice (U.S. EPA, 1999b, U.S. EPA, 2000b) EPA has classified chlorpyrifos in Group E (Appendix G) (U.S. EPA, 2000b). Experimental evidence indicates this compound bioaccumulates in rainbow trout (BCF from 1,280 to 3,903) (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
Chlorpyrifos has been included in one national monitoring program reviewed by the EPA 1993 Workgroup, the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (NSCRF) (see Appendix E). In this study, chlorpyrifos was detected at 26 percent of sites sampled nationally (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Eighteen percent of the sites with relatively high concentrations (0.0025 to 0.344 ppm) were scattered throughout the East, Midwest, and in California; the highest mean concentrations detected (0.060 to 0.344 ppm) were found either in agricultural areas or in urban areas with a variety of nearby industrial sources. Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median tissue concentrations (wet weight) of chlorpyrifos were 0.344 ppm, 0.004 ppm, and not detectable, respectively. Mean chlorpyrifos resi dues from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders such as carp (0.0082 ppm), white sucker (0.0018 ppm), and channel catfish (0.007 ppm) as compared to predator species such as largemouth bass (0.00028 ppm), smallmouth bass (0. 00008 ppm), and walleye (0.00004 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994). It should be noted that this national study did not specifically target agricultural sites where this pesticide historically had been used or is currently used. Chlorpyrifos residues in fish could be much higher if sampling were targeted for pesticide runoff, especially during the period immediately after field application.
In 1993, no consumption advisories were in effect for chlorpyrifos (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Chlorpyrifos should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on thehistoric and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where chlorpyrifos is currently used or was used historically. In suburban/urban water-**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-41 sheds, the degree of historic and current use of chlorpyrifos in domestic home and garden applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds also should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of chlorpyrifos production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.3.2 Diazinon**

**—** Diazinon is a phosphorothiate insecticide and nematicide that was first registered in 1952 for control of soil insects and pests of fruits, vegetables, tobacco, forage, field crops, range, pasture, grasslands, and ornamentals; for control of cockroaches and other household insects; for control of grubs and nematodes in turf; as a seed treatment; and for fly control (U.S. EPA, 1986d). Diazinon is also used by the general public for home, lawn, and garden insect control (Appendix F) (ATSDR, 1996).
Diazinon is moderately toxic to mammals and has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class II based on oral toxicity tests (U.S. EPA, 1998d) (Appendix F). Diazinon was not found to be carcinogenic in rats and mice (ATSDR, 1996). Because of inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity, EPA has classified diazinon as “ not likely to be a human carcinogen ” ) (Appendix G) (U.S. EPA, 1998d). This compound is also highly toxic to birds, fish, and other aquatic invertebrates (U.S. EPA, 1986d).
Diazinon was not included in any national fish contaminant monitoring program evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). Experimental evidence indicates this compound accumulates in trout (BCF of 542) (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
In 1993, no consumption advisories were in effect for diazinon (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Diazinon should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acre age where diazi non is currently used or was used historically. In suburban/urban watersheds, the degree of historic and current use of diazinon in domestic home and garden applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of diazinon production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.3.3 Disulfoton**

**—** Disulfoton is a multipurpose systemic insecticide and acaricide first registered in 1958 for use as a side dressing, broadcast, or foliar spray in the seed furrow to control many insect and mite species and as a seed treatment for sucking insects (Appendix F) ( Farm Chemicals Handbook , 1989).
Disulfoton is highly toxic to all mammalian systems and has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class I on the basis of all routes of exposure (U.S. EPA, 1998d).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-42 Disulfoton was not found to be carcinogenic in dogs, rats, or mice (ATSDR, 1995). Because of inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity, EPA has classified disulfoton as Group E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans (Appendix G) (U.S. EPA, 1999b).
Disulfoton was not included in any national fish contaminant monitoring program evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (A ppendix E). Experimental evidence indicates this compound accumulates in fish (BCF from 460 to 700) (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
In 1993, no consumption advisories were in effect for disulfoton (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1 999c). Disulfoton should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on thehistoric and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where disulfoton currently is used or was used historically. Sites in industrial watershedsalso should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of disulfoton production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.3.4 Ethion**

**—** Ethion is a multipurpose insecticide and acaricide that has been registered since 1965 for use on a wide variety of nonfood crops (turf, evergreen plantings, and ornamentals), food crops (seed, fruit, nut, fiber, grain, forage, and vegetables), and for domestic outdoor uses around dwellings and for lawns (Appendix F) ( Farm Chemicals Handbook, 1989). Application to citrus crops accounts for 86 to 89 percent of the ethion used in the United States. The remaining 11 to 14 percent is applied to cotton and a variety of fruit and nut trees and vegetables. Approximately 55 to 70 percent of all domestically produced citrus fruits are treated with ethion (U.S. EPA, 1989e).
Acute oral toxicity studies have shown that technical-grade ethion is moderately toxic to mammals (EPA Toxicity Class II) (U.S. EPA, 1998d). Ethion was not found to be carcinogenic in rats and mice (U.S. EPA, 1989e). EPA has classified ethion in Group E

– evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans (Appendix G) (U.S. EPA, 1999b).
Ethion was not included in any national fish contaminant monitoring program evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). Experimental evidence indicates this compound accumulates in bluegill sunfish (BCF from 880 to 2,400) (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
In 1993, no consumption advisories were in effect for ethion (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Ethion should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-43 should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage where ethion currently is used or was used historically. In suburban/urban watersheds, the degree of historic and current use of ethion in domestic home and garden applications should be evaluated. Sites in industrial watersheds also should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of ethion production, formulation, or packaging facilities.

**4.3.3.5 Terbufos**

**—** Terbufos is a systemic organophosphate insecticide and nematicide registered in 1974 principally for use on corn, s ugar beets, and grain sorghum. The primary method of application involves direct soil incorporation of a granular formulation ( Farm Chemicals Handbook , 1989). Two soil metabolites of terbufos, terbufos sulfoxide and terbufos sulfone, are also toxic to humans and are found at sites where terbufos has been applied (U.S. EPA, 1995)
Terbufos is highly toxic to humans and has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class I (U.S. EPA, 1998d) (Appendix F). Terbufos was not found to be carcinogenic in rats and mice (U.S. EPA, 1995j). EPA has assigned terbufos to carcinogenicity classification E, evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans (U.S. EPA, 1998d) (Appendix G). Terbufos is also highly toxic to birds, fish, and other aquatic invertebrates (U.S. EPA, 1985d).
Terbufos was not included in any national fish contaminant monitoring program evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). Experimental evidence indicates this compound accumulates in fish (BCF from 320 to 1,400) (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
In 1993, no consumption advisories were in effect for terbufos (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this pesticide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Terbufos and its toxic metabolites should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on the historic and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate andacreage where terbufos currently is used or was used historically. Sites in industrial watersheds also should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of terbufos production, formulation, or packaging facilities.
**4.3.4 Chlorophenoxy Herbicides**
Chlorophenoxy herbicides, which include oxyfluorfen, are nonselective foliar herbicides that are most effective in hot weather (Ware, 1978).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-44 **4.3.4.1 Oxyfluorfen**

**—** Oxyfluorfen is a pre- and postemergence herbicide with an active registration that has been registered since 1979 for use to control a wide spectrum of annual broadleaf weeds and grasses in apples, artichokes, corn, cotton, jojoba, tree fruits, grapes, nuts, soybeans, spearmint, peppermint, and certain tropical plantation and ornamental crops (Appendix F) ( Farm Chemicals Handbook
, 1989).
Oxyfluorfen is of low toxicity to mammals (oral LD 50 in rats >5,000 mg/kg) and has been assigned to EPA Toxicity Class IV (U.S. EPA, 1998d) (Hayes and Lawes, 1991). There is also evidence of carcinogenicity (liver tumors) in mice (U.S. EPA, 1993a) and therefore oxyfluorfen has been classified by EPA as a possible human carcinogen (C) (Appendix G) (U.S. EPA, 1999b).
Oxyfluorfen was not included in any national fish contaminant monitoring program evaluated by the EPA 1993 Workgroup (Appendix E). Experimental evidence indicates this herbicide accumulates in bluegill sunfish (BCF from 640 to 1,800) (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
In 1993, no consumption advisories were in effect for oxyfluorfen (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were no advisories in effect for this herbicide (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Oxyfluorfen should be considered for inclusion in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs in areas where its use is or has been extensive. States should contact their appropriate agencies to obtain information on thehistoric and current uses of this pesticide. Monitoring sites in agricultural watersheds should be reviewed to determine the application rate and acreage whereoxyfluorfen currently is used or was used historically. Sites in industrial watersheds also should be reviewed to identify historic and current sites of oxyfluorfen production, formulation, or packaging facilities.
**4.3.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons**
PAHs are base/neutral organic compounds that have a fused ring structure of two or more benzene rings. PAHs are also commonly referred to as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs). PAHs with two to five benzene rings (i.e., 10 to 24 skeletal carbons) are generally of greatest concern for environmental and human health effects (Benkert, 1992). These PAHs have been identified as the most important with regard to human exposure (ATSDR, 1995):

• Acenaphthene

• Acenaphthylene

• Anthracene

• Benz[ a ]anthracene

• Benzo[ a ]pyrene

• Benzo[e]pyrene

• Benzo[ b ]fluoranthene

• Benzo[ k ]fluoranthene • Benzo[j]fluoranthene

• Benzo[ g,h,i ]perylene

• Chrysene

• Dibenz[ a,h ]anthracene

• Fluoranthene

• Fluorene

• Indeno[ 1,2,3-cd ]pyrene

• Phenanthrene**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-45 • Pyrene.
The metabolites of many of the high-molecular-weight PAHs (e.g., benz[ a ] anthracene, benzo[ a ]pyrene, benzo[ b ]fluoranthene, benzo[ k ]fluoranthene, chrys ene, dibenz[ a,h ]anthracene, indeno[ 1,2,3-cd ]pyrene, and benzo[ g,h,i ]perylene) have been shown in laboratory test systems to be carcinogens, cocarcinogens, teratogens, and/or mutagens (Moore and Ramamoorthy, 1984; ATSDR 1995). Benzo[ a ]pyrene, one of the most widely occurring and potent PAHs, and six other PAHs (e.g., benz[ a ]anthracene, benzo[ b ]fluoranthene, benzo[ k ]fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz[ a,h ]anthracene, indeno[ 1,2,3-cd ]pyrene) have been classified by EPA as probable human carcinogens (B2) (IRIS, 1999). Evidence for the carcinogenicity of PAHs in humans comes primarily from epidemiologic studies that have shown an increased mortality due to lung cancer in humans exposed to PAH-containing coke oven emissions, roof-tar emissions, and cigarette smoke (ATSDR, 1995).
PAHs are ubiquitous in the environment and usually occur as complex mixtures with other toxic chemicals. They are components of crude and refined petroleum products and of coal. They are also produced by the incomplete combustion of organic materials. Many domestic and industrial activities involve pyrosynthesis of PAHs, which may be released into the environment in airborne particulates or in solid (ash) or liquid byproducts of the pyrolytic process. Domestic activities that produce PAHs include cigarette smoking, home heating with wood or fossil fuels, waste incineration, broiling and smoking foods, and use of internal combustion engines. Industrial activities that produce PAHs include wood preserving, coal coking; production of carbon blacks, creosote, and coal tar; petroleum refining; synfuel production from coal; and use of Soderberg electrodes in aluminum smelters and ferrosilicum and iron works (ATSDR, 1995; Neff, 1985). Historic coal gasification sites have also been identified as significant sources of PAH contamination (ATSDR, 1995).
Major sources of PAHs found in marine and fresh waters include biosynthesis (restricted to anoxic sediments), sp illage and seepage of fossil fuels, discharge of domestic and industrial wastes, atmos pheric deposition, and runoff (Neff, 1985). Urban stormwater runoff contains PAHs from leaching of asphalt roads, wearing of tires, deposition from automobile exhaust, and oiling of roadsides and unpaved roadways with crankcase oil (ATSDR, 1995; MacKenzie and Hunter, 1979). Solid PAH-containing residues from activated sludge treatment facilities have been disposed of in landfills or in the ocean (ocean dumping was banned in 1989). Although liquid domestic sewage contains <1 μg/L total PAH, the total PAH content of industrial sewage is 5 to 15 μg/L (Borneff and Kunte, 1965) and that of sewage sludge is 1 to 30 mg/kg (Grimmer et al., 1978; Nicholls et al., 1979).
In most cases, there is a direct relationship between PAH concentrations in river water and the degree of industrialization and human activity in the surrounding watersheds. Rivers flowing through heavily industrialized areas may contain 1 to**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-46 5 ppb total PAH, compared to unpolluted river water, ground water, or seawater that usually contains less than 0.1 ppb PAH (Neff, 1979).
PAHs can accumulate in aquatic organisms from water, sediments, and food. BCFs of PAHs in fish, crustaceans, and bivalves have frequently been reported to be in the range of 12 to 9,200 for fish, 200 to 134,248 for crustaceans, and 8 to 242 for bivalves based on short-term exposure studies typically less than 7 days duration (Eisler, 1987). In general, bioconcentration was greater for the higher molecular weight PAHs than for the lower molecular weight PAHs. Biotransformation by the mixed function oxidase system in the fish liver can result in the formation of carcinogenic and mutagenic intermediates, and exposure to PAHs has been linked to the development of tumors in fish (Eisler, 1987). The ability of fish to metabolize PAHs probably explains why benzo[ a ]pyrene frequently is not detected or is found only at very low concentrations in fish from areas heavily contaminated with PAHs (Varanasi and Gmur, 1980, 1981).
Sediment-associated PAHs can be accumulated by bottom-dwelling invertebrates and fish (Eisler, 1987). For example, Great Lakes sediments containing elevated levels of PAHs were reported by Eadie et al. (1983) to be the source of the body burdens of the compounds in bottom-dwelling invertebrates. Similarly, Varanasi et al. (1985) found that benzo[ a ]pyrene was accumulated in fish, amphipod crustaceans, shrimp, and clams when estuarine sediment was the source of the compound. Approximate tissue-to-sediment ratios were 0.6 to 1.2 for amphipods, 0.1 for clams, and 0.05 for fish and shrimp. Although fish and most crustaceans evaluated to date have the mixed function oxidase system required for biotransformation of PAHs, many molluscs lack this system and are unable to metabolize PAHs efficiently (Varanasi et al., 1985). More important, PAHs induce mixed function oxidase enzymes (and thus their own biotransformation) in fish and other vertebrates, but not in molluscs and crustaceans (Stegeman and Lech,1991). The resulting dramatic difference in biotransformation means that in PAHcontaminated waters, fish may show little or no accumulation of PAHs, while bivalve molluscs and crustaceans are heavily contaminated. Varanasi et al. (1985) ranked benzo[ a ]pyrene metabolism by aquatic organisms as follows: fish > shrimp > amphipod crustaceans > clams. Half-lives for elimination of PAHs in fish ranged from less than 2 days to 9 days (Niimi, 1987). NAS (1991) reported that PAH contamination in bivalves has been found in all areas of the United States. If PAHs are selected as a target analyte to be monitored at a site, primary preference should be given to selection of a bivalve mollusc (clam, oyster, mussel) as the target species, secondary preference should be given to a crustacean (shrimp, lobster, crab) (if available), and finfish should be given the lowest priority for selection as the target species. This ranking of the preferred target species for PAH analysis assumes that a bivalve mollusc and crustacean are available at the sampling site and that these species are eaten by the consumer population of concern.
In 1993, three states (Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio) had issued advisories for PAH contamination in finfish (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were five advisories in effect in four states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-47 Washington) for PAHs (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Monitoring sites in industrial and suburban/urban watersheds should be reviewed to identify current and historic sites of waste incinerators, coal gasification facilities, petroleum refineries, and creosote, coal tar, coal coking, and wood preservative facilities that are potential sources for PAH releases to the environment. Sites of petroleum spills should also be reviewed.
The EPA and others have developed a relative potency estimate approach for the PAHs (Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1993c). Using this approach, the cancer potency of 14 carcinogenic PAHs can be estimated based on their relative potency to benzo[ a ]pyrene. Toxicity equivalence factors (TEF) for benzo[a]pyrene and the other 14 PAHs based on carcinogenicity are discussed in Section 5.3.2.4.
Although several PAHs have been classified as probable human carcinogens (Group B2), benzo[ a ]pyrene is the only PAH for which an oral CSF is currently available in IRIS (1999). It is recommended that, in both screening and intensive studies, tissue samples be analyzed for benzo[ a ]pyrene and the other 14 PAHs for which TEFs are available and that the relative potencies given for these PAHs (Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1993c) be used to calculate a potency equivalency concentration for each sample for comparison with the recommended SVs for benzo[ a ]pyrene (see Section 5.3.2.4).
**4.3.6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total)**
PCBs are base/neutral compounds that are formed by the direct chlorination of biphenyl. PCBs are closely related to many chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (e.g., DDT, dieldrin, and aldrin) in their chemical, physical, and toxicologic properties and in their widespread occurrence in the aquatic environment (Nimmo, 1985). There are 209 different PCB compounds, termed congeners, based on the possible chlorine substitution patterns. In the United States, mixtures of various PCB congeners were formulated for commercial use under the trade name Aroclor on the basis of their percent chlorine content. For example, a common PCB mixture, Aroclor 1254, has an average chlorine content of 54 percent by weight (Nimmo, 1985).
Unlike the organochlorine pesticides, PCBs were never intended to be released directly into the environment; most uses were in closed industrial systems. Important properties of PCBs for industrial applications include thermal stability, fire and oxidation resistance, and solubility in organic compounds (Hodges, 1977). PCBs were used as insulating fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors, as plasticizers, as lubricants, as fluids in vacuum pumps and compressors, and as heat transfer and hydraulic fluids (Hodges, 1977; Nimmo, 1985). Although use of PCBs as a dielectric fluid in transformers and capacitors was generally considered a closed-system application, the uses of PCBs, especially during the 1960s, were broadly expanded to many open systems where losses to the environment were likely. Heat transfer systems, hydraulic fluids in die cast machines, and uses in specialty inks are examples of more open-ended**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-48 applications that resulted in serious contamination in fish near industrial discharge points (Hesse, 1976).
Although PCBs were once used extensively by industry, their production and use in the United States were banned by the EPA in July 1979 (Miller, 1979). Prior to 1979, the disposal of PCBs and PCB-containing equipment was not subject to federal regulation. Prior to regulation, of the approximately 1.25 billion pounds purchased by U.S. industry, 750 million pounds (60 percent) were still in use in capacitors and transformers, 55 million pounds (4 percent) had been destroyed by incineration or degraded in the environment, and over 450 million pounds (36 percent) were either in landfills or dumps or were available to biota via air, water, soil, and sediments (Durfee et al., 1976).
PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment and are bioaccumulated throughout the food chain (Eisler, 1986; Worthing, 1991). There is evidence that PCB health risks increase with increased chlorination because more highly chlorinated PCBs are retained more efficiently in fatty tissues (IRIS, 1999). However, individual PCB congeners have widely varying potencies for producing a variety of adverse biological effects including hepatotoxicity, cardiovascular toxicity, developmental toxicity, imm unotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and carci nogenicity. The non-ortho-substituted copl anar PCB congeners, and some of the m ono-orthosubstituted congeners, have been shown to exhibit "dioxin-like" effects (Golub et al., 1991; Kimbrough and Jensen, 1989; McConnell, 1980; Poland and Knutson, 1982; Safe, 1985, 1990; Tilson et al., 1990; U.S. EPA 1993c; Van den Berg et al., 1998). The neurotoxic effects of PCBs appear to be associated with some degree of ortho-chlorine substitution. There is increasing evidence that many of the toxic effects of PCBs result from alterations in hormonal function. Because PCBs can act directly as hormonal agonists or ant agonists, PCB mixtures may have complex interactive effects in biological systems (Korach et al., 1988; Safe et al., 1991; Shain et al., 1991; U.S. EPA, 1993c). Because of the lack of sufficient toxicologic data, EPA has not developed quantitative estimates of health risk for specific congeners; however, 12 dioxin-like congeners have been assigned TEFs and may be evaluated as contributing to dioxin health risk (Van den Berg et al., 1998). PCB mixtures have been classified as probable human carcinogens (Group B2) (Appendix G) (IRIS, 1999; U.S. EPA, 1988a).
PCB mixtures have been shown to cause adverse developmental effects in experimental animals (ATSDR, 1998b). Data are inconclusive in regard to developmental effects in humans. Several studies in humans have suggested that PCB exposure may cause adverse developmental effects in children and in developing fetuses (ATSDR, 1998b) These include lower IQ scores (Jacobson and Jacobson, 1996), low birth weight (Rylander et al., 1998), and lower behavior assessment scores (Lonky et al., 1996). However, study limitations, including lack of control for confounding variables, deficiencies in the general areas of exposure assessment, selection of exposed and control subjects, and the comparability of exposed and control samples obscured interpretation of these results (ATSDR, 1998b).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-49 PCBs, total or as Aroclors, have been included in seven major fish contaminant monitoring programs evaluated by the 1993 EPA Workgroup (Appendix E). A summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Contaminants Biomonitoring Program (NCBP) data from 1976 through 1984 indicated a significant downward trend in the geometric mean concentration (wet weight basis) of total PCBs (from 0.89 ppm in 1976 to 0.39 ppm in 1984); however, PCB residues in fish tissue remain widespread, being detected at 91 percent of the sites monitored in 1984 (Schmitt et al., 1990). Maximum total PCB tissue residue concentrations during this same period also declined, from 70.6 ppm in 1976 to 6.7 ppm in 1984. Coinciding declines in tissue residue concentrations of three Aroclors (1248, 1254, and 1260) were also observed. Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of all 1984-1985 data from the NCBP study on the three Aroclors in bottom-feeding and predatory fish species. These authors reported there was no significant difference in residues in these two trophic groups of fish for Aroclor 1248 and 1254; however, there were significantly higher concentrations of Aroclor 1260 in predator species as compared to bottom feeders. Mean tissue concentrations of Aroclor 1248, 1254, and 1260 were 0.06 ± 0.32, 0.21 ± 0.39, and 0.14 ± 0.24 ppm, respectively, for bottom feeders (e.g., carp, white suckers, and channel catfish) and 0.08 ± 0.31, 0.35 ± 0.69, and 0.23 ± 0.38 ppm, respectively, for predator species (e.g., rainbow, brown, brook, and lake trout, largemouth bass, and walleye).
Total PCBs also were detected at 91 percent of 374 sites surveyed in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish (NSCRF) (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). Maximum, arithmetic mean, and median total PCB concentrations (wet weight) reported were 124, 1.89, and 0.209 ppm, respectively. As is shown in Table 4-6, the tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, and heptachlorobiphenyls were detected in fish tissue samples at >50 percent of the NSCRF sites. Mean tissue concentrations were highest for the tetra- and pentachlorobiphenyls with concentrations of 0.696, 0.565, and 0.356 ppm, respectively. The median fish tissue concentrations were highest for the hexa- followed by the pentachlorobiphenyls with concentrations of 0.077 and 0.072 ppm, respectively.
With respect to sources of these compounds, PCBs were detected in all parts of the country with the highest concentrations being associated with paper mills, refinery/other industry sites, Superfund sites, wood preserving facilities, and industrial/urban areas. Mean total PCB concentrations from the NSCRF study were highest in bottom feeders (whole fish) such as carp (2.94 ppm), white sucker (1.7 ppm), and channel catfish (1.3 ppm) as compared to predator species (fillet samples) such as largemouth bass (0.23 ppm), smallmouth bass (0.5 ppm), and walleye (0.37 ppm) (Kuehl et al., 1994).
In 1993, PCB contamination in fish and shellfish resulted in the issuance of 328 advisories in 31 states and the U.S. territory of American Samoa (Figure 4-3) (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were 679 advisories in effect in 36 states and the U.S. territory of American Samoa for this compound (Figure 4-3) (U.S. EPA, 1999c.). In addition, two states (Indiana and New York) and the District of Columbia had statewide advisories for PCBs in freshwater rivers and/or lakes.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-50 One state, Connecticut, had an advisory for all its coastal estuarine waters (Long Island Sound), and five states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Isl and) had advisories in effect for all of their coastal marine waters (U.S. EPA, 1999c). Monitoring sites in industrial and s ubur ban/ urban watersheds s hould be reviewed to identify sites of historical Aroclor production fac ilities, current and historic transformer m anufacturing or refurbishing facilities, current and historic landfill and Superfund sites, and current and historic incineration or combustion facilities that are potential sources for PCB releases to the environment.
PCBs may be analyzed quantitatively as Aroclor equivalents, as homologue groups, or as individual congeners. Historically, Aroclor analysis has been performed by most laboratories. This procedure can, however, result in significant error in determining total PCB concentrations (Schwartz et al., 1987; Cogliano, 1998; U.S. EPA, 1996) and in assessing the toxicologic significance of PCBs, because it is based on the assumption that distribution of PCB congeners in environmental samples and parent Aroclors is similar.
The distribution of PCB congeners in Aroclors is, in fact, altered considerably by physical, chemical, and biological processes after release into the environment, particularly when the process of biomagnification is involved (Norstrom, 1988;Oliver and Niimi, 1988; Smith et al., 1990; U.S. EPA, 1996). Aquatic environmental studies indicate that the chlorine content of PCBs increases at higher trophic levels (Bryan et al., 1987; Kubiak et al., 1989; Oliver and Niimi, 1988). **Table 4-6. Summary of PCBs Detected in Fish Tissue a**  **as Part of the National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish** 

**Congener group % sites**  **where detected Maximum Mean Median**  Monochlorobiphenyl 13.8 0.235 0.001 ND Dichlorobiphenyl 30.7 5.072 0.021 ND Trichlorobiphenyl 57.5 18.344 0.150 0.002 Tetrachlorobiphenyl 72.4 60.764 0.696 0.023 Pentachlorobiphenyl 86.7 29.578 0.565 0.072 Hexachlorobiphenyl 88.7 8.862 0.356 0.077 Heptachlorobiphenyl 69.1 1.850 0.097 0.017 Octachlorobiphenyl 34.8 0.593 0.017 ND Nonachlorobiphenyl 9.7 0.413 0.003 ND Decachlorobiphenyl 3.3 0.038 0.001 0.003 Total PCBs* 91.4

----- 1.898 0.209 * The sum of the concentrations of compounds with 1 to 10 chlorines.

a Concentrations are in ppm (μg/g) wet weight basis.

Source: U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-51 **Figure 4-3. States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for PCBs. 4. TARGET ANALYTES** 

4-52 The available data indicate that bioaccumulated PCBs are more toxic and more persistent than the original Aroclor mixtures (Cogliano, 1998). Consequently, analysis of homologue groups or congeners should provide a more accuratedetermination of total PCB concentrations than Aroclor analysis. PCB concentrations derived from Aroclor methods may underestimate total PCBs. In one study, the Delaware Department of National Resources and Environmental Control (DDNREC) compared results of PCBs in six fish samples as determined by Aroclor analysis (Method 608) and homologue analysis (Method 680) (Greene, 1992). On the average, the homologue method gave PCB estimates that were 230 percent higher than the results from the Aroclor method.
The major advantage to analyzing PCBs as Aroclor equivalents is that the analysis is relatively inexpensive (approximately $200 - $500) compared to analyzing PCBs as individual congeners (approximately $ 800-$ 2000). Another disadvantage to analyzing PCBs as individual congeners is that the large number of PCB congeners presents analytical difficulties. Quantitation of individual PCB congeners is relatively time-consuming. EPA has not issued a standard method for PCB congener analysis but has developed a draft method (1668) for dioxin-like congeners (U.S. EPA 1997a). This method is likely to be revised to include the capability to detect all 209 PCB congeners. Currently, only a few laboratories have the capability or expertise to perform congener analyses. Both NOAA (MacLeod et al., 1985; NOAA, 1989b) and the EPA Narragansett Research Laboratory conduct PCB congener analyses. Some states currently conduct both congener and Aroclor analysis; however, most states routinely perform only Aroclor analysis. Analytical methods for congener analysis are discussed in the following references: Cogliano, 1998; Huckins et al., 1988; Kannan et al., 1989; Lake et al., 1995; MacLeod et al., 1985; Maack and Sonzogni, 1988; Mes and Weber, 1989; NOAA, 1989b; Skerfving et al., 1994; Smith et al., 1990; Tanabe et al., 1987; U.S. EPA, 1996.
For the purposes of conducting a risk assessment to determine whether tissue residues exceed potential levels of public health concern in fish and shellfishmonitoring programs, analysis of PCB congener or Aroclor equivalents is acceptable. However, because of their lower cost, Aroclor analyses may be the more cost-effective method to use if a large number of samples are analyzed for PCB contamination.
States are encouraged to develop the capability to perform PCB congener analysis. When congener analysis is conducted, at a minimum the 18 congeners recommended by NOAA (shown in Table 4-7) should be analyzed and summed to determine a total PCB concentration according to the approach used by NOAA (1989b). States may wish to consider including additional congeners based on site-specific considerations. PCB congeners of potential environmental importance identified by McFarland and Clarke (1989) and dioxin-like congeners identified by Van den Berg et al. (1998) also are listed in Table 4-7. Lake et al. (1995) and Oliver and Niimi (1988) included more t han 80 c ongeners in their analyses of PCB patterns in water, sediment, and aquatic organisms. A recent study conducted by the DDNREC (Greene, 1999) analyzed for 75 congeners in**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-53 **Table 4-7. Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Congeners Recommended for Quantitation as Potential Target Analytes** 

**PCB Congener a,b**  **NOAA c**  **McFarland and Clarke (1989)**  **Dioxin Like PCBs**  **f Highest**  **priority d**  **Second priority**  **e** 2,4 ’ diCB 8 2,2 ’ ,5 triCB 2,4,4 ’ triCB 3,4,4 ’ triCB 18 28 18 37

2,2 ’ 3,5 ’ tetraCB 2,2 ’ 4,5 ’ tetraCB 2,2 ’ ,5,5 ’ tetraCB 2,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ tetraCB 2,3 ’ ,4 ’ ,5 tetraCB 2,4,4 ’ ,5 tetraCB 3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ tetraCB 3,4,4 ’ ,5 tetraCB 44 52 66 77 77 44 49 52 70 74 81 77 81

2,2 ’ ,3,4,5 ’ pentaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,4 ’ ,5 pentaCB 2,2 ’ ,4,5,5 ’ pentaCB 2,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ pentaCB 2,3,4,4 ’ ,5 pentaCB 2,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5 pentaCB 2,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,6 pentaCB 2 ’ ,3,4,4 ’ ,5 pentaCB 3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5 pentaCB 101 105 118 126 87 90 101 105 118 126 114 119 123 105 114 118 123 126

2,2 ’ ,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ hexaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,4,4 ’ ,5 ’ hexaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,5,5 ’ ,6 hexaCB 2,2 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ hexaCB 2,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5 hexaCB 2,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5 hexaCB 2,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,6 hexaCB 2,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ hexaCB 2,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5 ’ ,6 hexaCB 3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ hexaCB 128 138 153 169 128 138 153 156 169 151 157 158 167 168 156 157 167 169

2,2 ’ ,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5 heptaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,4,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ heptaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,4,4 ’ ,5 ’ ,6 heptaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,4,4 ’ ,6,6 ’ heptaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ ,6 heptaCB 2,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ heptaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5,6 octaCB 2,2 ’ ,3,3 ’ ,4,5 ’ ,6,6 ’ octaCB 170 180 187 170 180 183 184 195 187 189 201 189

2,2 ’ ,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ ,6 nonaCB 206 2,2 ’ ,3,3 ’ ,4,4 ’ ,5,5 ’ ,6,6 ’ decaCB 209

a Congeners recommended for quantitation, from dichlorobiphenyl (diCB) through decachlorobiphenyl (decaCB). b Congeners are identified in each column by their International Union of Pure and Applied

Chemistry (IUPAC) number, as referenced in Ballschmitter and Zell (1980) and Mullin et al. (1984).

c EPA recommends that these 18 congeners be summed to determine total PCB concentration

(NOAA, 1989b). d PCB congeners having highest priority for potential environmental importance based on

potential for toxicity, frequency of occurrence in environmental samples, and relative abundance in animal tissues.

e Congeners having second priority for potential environmental importance based on potential

for toxicity, frequency of occurrence in environmental samples, and relative abundance in animal tissues. f Van den Berg et al., 1998.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-54 fish tissue. Of the 75 congeners, 40 were detected in every fish sample and 20 other congeners were detected in at least half the samples. The DDNREC concluded that a comprehensive target congener list is needed to account for total PCBs in environmental samples because most of the congeners contributed less than 5 percent of the total PCBs.
The EPA Office of Water recommends that PCBs be analyzed as either congeners or Aroclors, with total PCB concentrations reported as the sum of the individual congeners or the sum of the individual Aroclors. If a congener analysis is conducted, the 12 dioxin-like congeners identified in Table 4-7 may be evaluated separately as part of the dioxin risk (see Section 4.3.7). The recommendation is intended to allow states flexibility in PCB analysis and to encourage the continued development of reliable databases of PCB congener and Aroclor equivalents concentrations in fish and shellfish tissue in order to increase our understanding of the mechanisms of action and toxicities of these chemicals. The rationale for, and the uncertainties of, this recommended approach are discussed further in Section 5.3.2.6.

**4.3.7 Dioxins and Dibenzofurans**

**Note** : At this time, EPA ’ s Office of Research and Development is reevaluating the potency of dioxins and dibenzofurans. Information provided here as well as information in Section 5.3.2.7 related to calculating TEQs and SVs for dioxins/ furans has been modified since the second edition of this Volume 1 guidance was published, but is subject to change pending the results of this reevaluation.
The polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated di benzofurans (PCDFs) are included as target analytes primarily because of the extreme potency of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Extremely low doses of this homologue have been found to elicit a wide range of toxic responses in animals, including carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, fetotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, and immunotoxicity (U.S. EPA, 1987d). This compound is the most potent animal carcinogen evaluated by EPA, and EPA has determined that there is sufficient evidence to concl ude that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a probable human carcinogen (B2) (HEAST, 1997). Concern over the health effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is increased because of its persistence in the environment and its high potential to bioaccumulate (U.S. EPA, 1987d). As of 1998, the TEF value for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD was changed from 0.5 to 1.0, giving 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDD the same toxicity equivalency factor (Van den Berg et al., 1998). 1,2,3,7-8-PeCDD is also one of the congeners that is bioaccumulated by fish (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d).
Because dioxin/furan contamination is found in proximity to industrial sites (e.g., bleached kraft paper mills or facilities handling 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4,5-T], 2,4,5-trichlorophenol [2,4,5-TCP], and/or silvex), and municipal or industrial combustors and incinerators (U.S. EPA, 1987d), it is recommended that each state agency responsible for monitoring include these compounds as target analytes on a site-specific basis based on the presence of potential sources and**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-55 results of any environmental (water, sediment, soil, air) monitoring performed in areas adjacent to these sites. All states should maintain a current awareness of potential dioxin/furan contamination, including contamination from the 12 coplanar PCBs that exhibit dioxin-like effects.
Fifteen dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners have been included in two major fish contaminant monitoring programs; however, one congener, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, has been included in six national monitoring programs (Appendix E). Six dioxin congeners and nine dibenzofuran congeners were measured in fish tissue samples in the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. The various dioxin congeners were detected at 32 to 89 percent of the 388 sites surveyed, while the furan congeners were detected at 1 to 89 percent of the 388 sites surveyed (U.S. EPA, 1992c, 1992d). As shown in Table 4-8, the dioxin/furan congeners detected at more than 50 percent of the sites included four CDD compounds and three CDF compounds: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD (89 percent), 2,3,7,8 TCDF (89 percent), 2,3,7,8 TCDD (70 percent), 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD (69 percent), 2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF (64 percent), 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF (54 percent), and 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD (54 percent). The most frequently detected CDD/CDF compounds (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF) were also detected at the highest concentrations

– 249 ppt and 404 ppt (wet weight), respectively. The mean concentrations of these two compounds were considerably lower, at 10.5 and 13.6 ppt, respectively. The dioxin congener (2,3,7,8-TCDD) believed to be one of the two most toxic congeners to mammals was detected at 70 percent of the sites at a maximum concentration of 204 ppt and a mean concentration of 6.8 ppt. The other toxic congener, 1,2,3,7,8-Pe CDD, was detected at 54 percent of the sites at a maximum and mean concentration of 53.95 and 2.38 ppt, respectively.
The NSCRF data showed that pulp and paper mills using chlorine bleach pulp were the dominant source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF and that these sites had the highest median 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations (5.66 ppt), compared to other source categories studied, including refinery/other industrial sites (1.82 ppt), industrial/urban sites (1.40 ppt), Superfund sites (1.27 ppt), and background sites (0.5 ppt). Source categories that had the highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in fish also had the highest TEQ values. It should be noted that OCDD and OCDF were not analyzed in fish tissues because the TEFs were zero for these compounds at the initiation of the NSCRF study. In 1989, TEFs for OCDD and OCDFs were given a TEF value of 0.001. Therefore, TEQ values presented in the NSCRF report may be underreported for samples collected at sites with sources of OCDD/OCDF contamination (e.g., wood preservers) (U.S. EPA, 1992, 1992d). It is noted that the latest TEFs for OCDD and OCDF are 0.0 001 (Van den Berg et al., 1998) (see Table 5-6).
In 1993, 20 states had issued 67 fish advisories for dioxins/furans (Figure 4-4) (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were 59 advisories in effect in 19 states for this chemical contaminant (Figure 4-4) (U.S. EPA, 1999c). In addition, three states (Maine, New Jersey, and New York) had dioxin advisories in effect for all coastal marine waters (U.S. EPA, 1999c).**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-56 **Table 4-8. Summary of Dioxins/Furans Detected in Fish Tissue as Part of the EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish**  **a**

**Congener % Sites**  **where detected Maximum Mean**  **Standard deviation Median** 
**Dioxins** 2,3,7,8-TCDD 70 203.6 6.89 19.41 1.38 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 54 53.95 2.38 4.34 0.93 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 32 37.56 1.67 2.39 1.24 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 69 100.9 4.30 9.25 1.32 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 38 24.76 1.16 1.74 0.69 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 89 249.1 10.52 25.30 2.83
**Furans** 2,3,7,8-TCDF 89 403.9 13.61 40.11 2.97 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 47 120.3 1.71 7.69 0.45 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 64 56.37 3.06 6.47 0.75 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 42 45.33 2.35 4.53 1.42 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 21 30.86 1.74 2.34 1.42 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1 0.96 b 1.22 0.41 1.38 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 32 19.3 1.24 1.51 0.98 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 54 58.3 1.91 4.41 0.72 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 4 2.57 1.24 0.33 1.30
EPA-TEQ c NA 213 11.1 23.8 2.80

a Concentrations are given in picograms per gram (pg/g) or parts per trillion (ppt) by wet weight.

The mean, median, and standard deviation were calculated using one-half the detection limit for samples that were below the detection limit. In cases where multiple samples were analyzed per site, the value used represents the highest concentration. b Detection limits were higher than the few quantified values for 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF and

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF. Maximum values listed are measured values.

c This EPA study used TEF-89 toxicity weighting values but did not analyze concentrations of

octachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin or octachlorodibenzofurans in fish tissues; therefore, the TEQ value does not include these two compounds or the 12 coplanar PCB congeners. EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HpCDD = Heptachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin HpCDF = Heptachlorodibenzofuran HxCDD = Hexachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin HxCDF = Hexachlorodibenzofuran NA = Not applicable PeCDD = Pentachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin PeCDF = Pentachlorodibenzofuran

TCDD = Tetrachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin TCDF = Tetrachlorodibenzofuran

TEQ = Toxicity equivalency concentration. Source: U.S. EPA, 1992c and 1992d.**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-57 **Figure 4-4. States issuing fish and shellfish advisories for dioxin/furans. 4. TARGET ANALYTES** 

4-58 **Table 4-9. Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans Recommended for Analysis as Target Analytes** 
Dioxins Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDD OCDF Source: Van den Berg et al., 1998. Dioxins/furans should be considered for analysis primarily in suburban/urban and industrial watersheds at sites of pulp and paper mills using a chlorine bleaching process and at industrial sites where the following organic compounds have been or are currently produced: herbicides (containing 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acids and 2,4,5-trichlorophenol), silvex, hexachlorophene, pentachlorophenol, and PCBs as well as at sites of municipal and industrial waste incinerators and combustors (U.S. EPA, 1987d). EPA recommends that all of the 17 2,3,7,8- substituted tetra- through octachlorinated dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners shown in Table 4-9 as well as the 12 dioxin-like PCB congeners shown in Table 4-7 be included as target analytes.

**4.4 TARGET ANALYTES UNDER EVALUATION**
At present, the EPA Office of Water is evaluating one metal (lead) for possible inclusion as a recommended target analyte in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs. A toxicologic profile for this metal and the status of the evaluation are provided in this section. Other contaminants will be evaluated and may be recommended as target analytes as additional toxicologic data become available.

**Note:** Any time a state independently deems that an analyte currently under evaluation and/or other contaminants are of public health concern within its jurisdiction, the state should include these contaminants in its fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring program. **4.4.1 Lead**
Lead is derived primarily from the mining and processing of limestone and dolomite deposits, which are often sources of lead, zinc, and c opper (May and McKinney, 1981). It is also found as a minor component of coal. Historically, lead has had a number of i ndustrial uses, including use in paints, in solder used in plumbing and food cans, and as a gasoline additive. In the past, the primary**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-59 source of lead in the environment was the combustion of gasoline; however, useof lead in U.S. gasoline has fallen sharply in recent years due to an EPA phasedown program to minimize the amount of lead in gasoline over time. By 1988, the total lead usage in gasoline had been reduced to less than 1 percent of the amount used in the peak year of 1970 (ATSDR, 1997). At present, lead is used primarily in batteries, electric cable coverings, ammunition, electrical equipment, and sound barriers. Currently, the major points of entry of lead into the environment are from industrial processes, including metals processing, waste disposal and recycling, and chemical manufacturing and from the leachates of landfills (ATSDR, 1997; May and McKinney, 1981).
Lead has been included in five national monitoring programs (Appendix E). Lead has been shown to bioaccumulate, with the organic forms, such as tetraethyl lead, appearing to have the greatest potential for bioaccumulation in fish tissues. High concentrations of lead have been found in marine bivalves and finfish from both estuarine and marine waters (NOAA, 1987, 1989a). In 1984 and 1985, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected 315 composite samples of whole fish from 109 stations nationwide as part of the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (Schmitt and Brumb augh, 1990). The authors reported that the maximum, geometric mean, and 85 th percentile concentrations for lead were 4.88, 0.11, and 0.22 ppm (wet weight), respectively. Lead concentrations in freshwater fish declined significantly from a geometric mean concentration of 0.28 ppm in 1976 to 0.11 ppm in 1984. This trend has been attributed primarily to reductions in the lead content of U.S. gasoline (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990). Kidwell et al. (1995) conducted an analysis of lead levels in tissues from bottom-feeding and predatory fish using the 1984-1 985 data from the NCBP study. These authors reported that the mean lead tissue concentrations of 0.18 ± 0.37 ppm in bottom feeders and 0.15 ± 0.43 ppm in predator fish were not significantly different.
In 1993, three states (Massachusetts, Missouri, and Tennessee) and the U.S. territory of American Samoa had fish advisories for lead contamination (RTI, 1993). As of 1998, there were 10 advisories in effect in four states (Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio) and the U.S. territory of American Samoa for this heavy metal (U.S. EPA, 1999c).
Lead is particularly toxic to children and fetuses. Subtle neurobehavioral effects (e.g., fine motor dysfunction, impaired concept formation, and altered behavior profile) occur in children exposed to lead at concentrations that do not result in clinical encephalopathy (ATSDR, 1997). A great deal of information on the health effects of lead has been obtained through decades of medical observation and scientific research. By comparison to most other environmental toxicants, the degree of uncertainty about the health effects of lead is quite low. It appears that some of these effects, particularly changes in the levels of certain blood enzymes and in aspects of children's neurobehavioral development, may occur at blood lead levels so low as to be essentially without a threshold. EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) Work Group discussed inorganic lead (and lead compounds) in 1985 and considered it inappropriate to develop an RfD for inorganic lead (IRIS, 1999). Lead and its inorganic compounds have been classified as probable human**4. TARGET ANALYTES**

4-60carcinogens (B2) by EPA (IRIS, 1999). However, EPA has not derived a quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure to lead because age, health, nutritional status, body burden, and exposure duration influence the absorption, release, and excretion of lead. In addition, current knowledge of lead pharmacokinetics indicates that an estimate derived by standard procedures would not truly describe the potential risk (IRIS, 1999).
Because of the lack of quantitative health risk assessment information for oral exposure to inorganic lead, the EPA Office of Water has not included lead as a recommended target analyte in fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs at this time. **Note:** Because of the observation of virtually no-threshold neurobehavioral developmental effects of lead in children, states should include lead as a target analyte in fish and shellfish contaminant programs if there is any evidence that this metal may be present at detectable levels in fish or shellfish in their jurisdictional waters.5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-1 

## SECTION 5

SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

For the purpose of this guidance document, screening values are defined as concentrations of target analytes in fish or shellfish tissue that are of potential public health concern and that are used as threshold values against which levels of contamination in similar tissue collected from the ambient environment can be compared. Exceedance of these SVs should be taken as an indication that more intensive site-specific monitoring and/or evaluation of human health risk should be conducted.

The EPA-recommended risk-based method for developing SVs (U.S. EPA, 1989d) is described in this section. This method is considered to be appropriate for protecting the health of fish and shellfish consumers for the following reasons (Reinert et al., 1991):

• It gives full priority to protection of public health.

• It provides a direct link between fish consumption rate and risk levels (i.e., between dose and response).

• It generally leads to conservative estimates of increased risk.

• It is designed for protection of consumers of locally caught fish and shellfish, including susceptible populations such as sport and subsistence fishers who
are at potentially greater risk than the general adult population because they tend to consume greater quantities of fish and because they frequently fish the same sites repeatedly.
At this time, the EPA Office of Water is recommending use of this method because it is the basis for developing current water quality criteria. A detailed discussion of the flexibility of the EPA risk-based method and the use of EPA’s SVs as compared to FDA action levels is provided in Section 1.2. Further discussion of the EPA Office of Water risk-based approach, including a detailed description of the four steps involved in risk assessment (hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization) is provided in the second guidance document in this series, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits

.
5.1 GENERAL EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATING SCREENING VALUES

Risk-based SVs are derived from the general model for calculating the effective ingested dose of a chemical m (E m ) (U.S. EPA, 1989d):5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-2 E m = (C m • CR • X m ) / BW (5-1)

where

E m = Effective ingested dose of chemical m in the population of concern averaged over a 70-yr lifetime (mg/kg-d)

C m = Conce ntration of chemical m in the edible portion of the species of interest (mg/kg; ppm)

CR = Mean daily consumption rate of the species of interest by the general population or subpopulation of concern averaged over a 70-yr lifetime (kg/d)

X m = Relative absorption coefficient, or the ratio of human absorption efficiency to test animal absorption efficiency for chemical m (dimensionless)

BW = Mean body weight of the general population or subpopulation of concern (kg).
Using this model, the SV for the chemical m (SV m ) is equal to C m when the appropriate measure of toxicologic potency of the chemical m (P m ) is substituted for E m . Rearrangement of Equation 5-1, with these substitutions, gives

SV m = (P m • BW) / (CR • X m ) (5-2)

where

P m = Toxicologic potency for chemical m ; the effective ingested dose of chemical m

associated with a specified level of health risk as estimated from dose-response studies; dose-response variable

.
In most instances, relative absorption coefficients (X m ) are assumed to be 1.0 (i.e., human absorption efficiency is assumed to be equal to that of the test animal), so that

SV m = (P m • BW) / CR . (5-3)
However, if X m is known, Equation 5-2 should be used to calculate SV m . Dose-response variables for noncarcinogens and carcinogens are defined in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, respectively. These variables are based on an assessment of the occurrence of a critical toxic or carcinogenic effect via a specific route of exposure (i.e., ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact). Oral dose-response variables for the recommended target analytes are given in Appendix G. Because of the fundamental differences between the noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic dose-response variables used in the EPA risk-based method, SVs5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-3 must be calculated separately for noncarcinogens and potential carcinogens as shown in the following subsections.

5.1.1 Noncarcinogens

The dose-response variable for noncarcinogens is the reference dose

. The RfD is an estimate of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subpopulations) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The RfD is derived by applying uncertainty or modifying factors to a subthreshold dose (i.e., lowest observed adverse effects level [LOAEL] if the
no observed adverse effect level [NOAEL] is indeterminate) observed in chronic animal bioassays. These uncertainty or modifying factors range from 1 to 10 for each factor and are used to account for uncertainties in:

• Sensitivity differences among human subpopulations

• Interspecies extrapolation from animal data to humans

• Short-term to lifetime exposure extrapolation from less-than-chronic results on animals to humans when no long-term human data are available

• Deriving an RfD from a LOAEL instead of a NOAEL

• Incomplete or inadequate toxicity or pharmacokinetic databases.
The uncertainty (UF) and modifying (MF) factors are multiplied to obtain a final UF•MF value. This factor is divided into the NOAEL or LOAEL to derive the RfD (Barnes and Dawson, 1988; U.S. EPA, 1989d).
The following equation should be used to calculate SVs for noncarcinogens:

SV n = (RfD • BW)/CR (5-4) where

SV n = Screening value for a noncarcinogen (mg/kg; ppm) RfD = Oral reference dose (mg/kg-d)
and BW and CR are defined as in Equation 5-1.

5.1.2 Carcinogens

According to The

Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (U.S. EPA, 1987f), the default model for low-dose extrapolation of carcinogens is a version (GLOBAL 86) of the linearized multistage no-threshold model developed by Crump et al. (1976). This extrapolation procedure provides an upper 95 percent bound risk estimate (referred to as a q1*), which is considered by some to be a conservative esti mate of cancer risk. Other extrapolation procedures may be used when justified by the data.
Screening values for carcinogens are derived from: (1) a carcinogenicity potency factor or cancer slope factor
, which is generally an upper bound risk estimate; and (2) a risk

level (RL), an assigned level of maximum acceptable individual5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-4 lifetime risk (e.g., RL = 10 -5 for a level of risk not to exceed one excess case of
cancer per 100,000 individuals exposed over a 70-yr lifetime) (U.S. EPA, 1997b). The following equation should be used to calculate SVs for carcinogens:

SV c = [(RL / CSF) • BW] / CR (5-5)

where

SV c = Screening value for a carcinogen (mg/kg; ppm) RL = Maximum acceptable risk level (dimensionless) CSF = Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg-d) -1
and BW and CR are defined as in Equation 5-1.

5.1.3 Recommended Values for Variables in Screening Value Equations

The default values for variables used in Equations 5-4 and 5-5 to calculate SVs
are based on assumptions for the general adult population. These default values
are consistent with values included in the Methodol ogy for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000) (EPA-822-B-00- 004). For risk management purposes (e.g., to protect sensitive populations such
as pregnant and nursing women), states may choose to use alternative values for consumption rates, etc. different from those recommended in this section.

5.1.3.1 Dose-Response Variables—

EPA has developed oral RfDs and/or CSFs for all of the recommended target analytes in Section 4 (see Appendix G). These are maintained in the EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS, 1999), an electronic database containing health risk and EPA regulatory information on approximately 400 different chemicals. IRIS is available online at:

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html

The IRIS RfDs and CSFs are reviewed regularly and updated as necessary when
new or more reliable information on the toxic or carcinogenic potency of chemicals becomes available.

When IRIS values for oral RFDs and CSFs are available, they should be used to calculate SVs for target analytes from Equations 5-4 and 5-5, respectively. It is important that the most current IRIS values for oral RfDs and CSFs be used to calculate SVs for target analytes unless otherwise recommended.

In cases where IRIS values for oral RFDs or CSFs are not available for calculating SVs for target analytes, estimates of these variables may be derived from the most recent water quality criteria (U.S. EPA, 1992e) according to procedures described in U.S. EPA (1991a, p. IV-12), or from the Classification5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-5 Table 5-1. Recommended Values for Mean Body Weights (BWs) and Fish Consumption Rates (CRs) for Selected Subpopulations

Variable Recommended value Subpopulation
BW 70 kg

78 kg 65 kg 12 kg 17 kg 25 kg 36 kg 51 kg 61 kg All adults (U.S. EPA, 1999a) Adult males (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) Adult females (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) Children <3 yr (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) Children 3 to <6 yr (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) Children 6 to <9 yr (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) Children 9 to <12 yr (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) Children 12 to <15 yr (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) Children 15 to <18 yr (U.S. EPA, 1985b, 1990a) CR a 17.5 g/d (0.0175 kg/d) Estimate of the 90th percentile of recreational or sport fishers (USDA/ARS, 1998) and of the average consumption of uncooked fish and shellfish from estuarine and fresh waters by recreational fishers (U.S. EPA, 2000c) 142.4 g/d (0.1424 kg/d) Estimate of the 99th percentile of subsistence fishers (USDA/ARS, 1998) and of the average consumption of uncooked fish and shellfish from estuarine and fresh waters by subsistence fishers (U.S. EPA, 2000c)

a These are recommended default consumption rates only. Note: When local consumption rate data are available for recreational and subsistence fishers, they should be used to calculate SVs for noncarcinogens and carcinogens by subsistence fishers, as described in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, respectively. List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenicity Potential (U.S. EPA 1999b) from the Office of Pesticide Programs Health Effects Division.

5.1.3.2 Body Weight and Consumption Rate—

Values for the variables BW and CR in Equations 5-4 and 5-5 are given in Table 5-1 for various subpopulations including recreational and subsistence fishers. Note: In this third edition of this document, EPA’s Office of Water uses
a BW of 70 kg, a default CR of 17.5 g/d to calculate the SV for the general populations and recreational fishers, and a default CR of 142.4 g/d to calculate the SV for subsistence fishers. The CR values have been revised since the release of the previous edition.

The default CR of 6.5 g/d used in the previous edition of Volume I was based on data from a fish consumption survey conducted in 1973 and 1974 by the National Purchase Diaries and funded by the Tuna Institute. This value represented the estimated mean per capita freshwater/estuarine finfish and shellfish consumption rate for the general U.S. population (Jacobs et al., 1998). This value has been revised based on new data from the combined 1994, 1995, and 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) survey (USDA/ARS, 1998). The5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-6 CSFII survey is a national food consumption survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, consisting of multistage, stratified-cluster area probability samples from all states except Alaska and Hawaii.

These data are collected over 3 consecutive days. On the first day of the survey, participants give information to an in-home interviewer, and on the second and third days, data are taken from self-administered dietary records. Meals consumed both at home and away from home are recorded. Average daily individual consumptions of fish in a given fish-by-habitat category were calculated by summing the amount of fish eaten by the individual across 3 reporting days for all fish-related food codes in a given fish-by-habitat category. The total individual consumption was then divided by three to obtain an average daily consumption rate. The 3-day individual food consumption data collection period is one during which a majority of sampled individuals did not consume any finfish
or shellfish. The nonconsumption of finfish or shellfish by a majority of individuals, combined with consumption data from high-end consumers, resulted in a wide range of observed fish consumption rates. This range of fish consumption data would tend to produce distributions of fish consumption with larger variances than would be associated with a longer survey period, such as 30 days. The larger variances would reflect greater dispersion, which results in larger upper-percentile estimates, as well as upper confidence intervals associated with parameter estimates. It follows that estimates of the upper percentiles (90 th and 99 th percentiles) of per capita fish consumption based on 3 days of data will be consecutive with regard to risk (U.S. EPA, 1998a).

If states and tribes do not have site-specific fish consumption information concerning their recreational and subsistence fishers, it is EPA’s preference that they use as fish intake assumptions the default values from the most recent 1994-1996 CSFII study (USDA/ARS, 1998). The fish consumption default values of 17.5 g/d for the general adult population and recreational fishers and 142.4 g/d for subsistence fishers used in this document are representative of fish in take for these different population groups. These values are based on risk management decisions that EPA has made after evaluating numerous fish consumption surveys (U.S. EPA, 2000c). These default values represent the uncooked weight intake of freshwater/estuarine finfish and shellfish. EPA recognizes the data gaps and uncertainties associated with the analysis of the 1994-199 6 CSFII survey conducted in the process of making its default consumption rate recommendations. The estimated mean of freshwater/estuarine fish ingestion for adults is 7.50 g/d, and the median is 0 g/d. The estimated 90 th percentile is 17.53 g/d; the estimated 95th percentile is 49.59 g/d; and the estimated 99 th percentile is 142.41 g/d. The median value of 0 g/d may reflect the portion of individuals in the population who never eat fish as well as the limited reporting period (2 days) over which intake was actually measured. By applying as a default consumption rate the 17.5-g/d value for the general adult population, EPA intends to select a consumption rate that is protective of the majority of the population (the 90 th percentile of consumers and nonconsumers according to the 1994-1996 CSFII survey data). EPA further considers this rate to be indicative of the average consumption among recreational fishers based on5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-7 averages in the studies reviewed (U.S. EPA, 2000c). Similarly, EPA believes that the assumption of 142.4 g/d is within the range of average consumption estimates for subsistence fishers based on the studies reviewed. Experts at a 1992 National Water Quality Workshop acknowledged, however, that the national survey high-end values are representative of average rates for highly
ex posed groups such as subsistence fishers, specific ethnic groups, or other high-risk populations. EPA is aware that some local and regional studies indicate greater fish consumption among Native Americans, Pacific Asian Americans, and other subsistence consumers and recommends the use of those studies in appropriate cases. States and tribes have the flexibility to choose fish consumption rates higher than an average value for these populations groups. If a state has not identified a separate well-defined population of high-end
consumers and believes that the national data from the 1994-1996 CSFII are representative, they may choose these consumption rates.

With respect to consumption rates, EPA recommends that states always evaluate any type of consumption pattern they believe could reasonably be occurring at
a site. Evaluating additional consumption rates involves calculating additional SVs only and does not add to sampling or analytical costs.

EPA has published a review and analysis of survey methods that can be used by states to determine fish and shellfish consumption rates of local populations (U.S. EPA, 1992b, 1998b). States should consult these documents to ensure that appropriate values are selected to calculate SVs for site-specific exposure scenarios.
For any given population, there can be a sensitive subpopulation composed of ind ividuals who may be at higher-than-average risk due to their increased exposure or their increased sensitivity to a contaminant or both. For Native American subsistence fishers, there are several exposure issues of concern that should be addressed as part of a comprehensive exposure assessment:

• Consumption rates and dietary preferences

. Harris and Harper (1997) surveyed traditional tribal members in Oregon with a subsistence lifestyle and determined a consumption rate of 540 g/d, which included fresh, dried, and smoked fish. They also confirmed that the parts of the fish (heads, fins, tails, skeleton, and eggs) eaten by this group were not typically eaten by other groups. Another study conducted of four tribes in the Northwest that also surveyed tribal members in Oregon but did not target subsistence fishers, reported a 99 th percentile ingestion rate of 390 g/d for tribal members (CRITFC, 1994). These consumption rates are much higher than the default consumption rates provided in this document for subsistence fishers and emp hasize the need for identifying the consumption rate of the Native American subsistence population of concern.

• Community characteristics - It is important to consider family-specific fishing patterns in any exposure scenario, and attention should be paid to the role of the fishing family with respect to the tribal distribution of fish, the5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-8 sharing ethic, and providing fish for ceremonial religious events. Entire communities are exposed if fish are contaminated, and the community contaminant burden as a whole must be considered, not just the maximally exposed individual.

• Multiple contaminant exposure - Multiple contaminant exposure is significant for Native American subsistence fishers. A large number of contaminants are often detected in fish tissues and their combined risk associated with the higher consumption rates and dietary preferences for certain fish parts could be very high even if individual contaminants do not exceed the EPA reference dose (Harper and Harris, 1999).

• Other exposure pathways - For Native American subsistence fishers, overall exposure to a contaminant may be underestimated if it fails to take into account nonfood uses of fish and other animal parts that may contribute to overall exposure, such as using teeth and bones for decorations and whistles, animal skins for clothing, and rendered fish belly fat for body paint (Harp er and Harris, 1999). If other wildlife species (e.g., feral mammals, turtles, waterfowl) that also live in or drink from the contaminated waterbody
are eaten, or if the contaminated water is used for irrigation of crops or for livestock watering or human drinking water, the relative source contribution of these other pathways of exposure must also be considered. As with fish and wild game, plants are used by Native Americans for more than just nutrition. Daily cleaning, preparation, and consumption of plants and crafting of plant materials into household goods occurs throughout the year (Harris and Harper, 1997).

As in the general population, increased sensitivity to a chemical contaminant for Native Americans can result from factors such as an individual’s underlying health status and medications, baseline dietary composition and quality, genetics, socioeconomic status, access to health care, quality of replacement protein, age, gender, pregnancy, and lactation. These factors are only partially considered in the uncertainty factor(s) used to develop the RfD (Harper and Harris, 1999).

Other important issues that need to be considered concern risk characterization and risk management. For Native American subsistence fishers, the use of an acceptable risk level of 1 in 100,000 (10 -5 ) may not be acceptable to all tribes. Each tribe has the right to decide for themselves what an acceptable level of risk is, and, in some cases, it may be zero risk (zero discharge) to protect cultural
resources and uses. Ecological well-being or health is another key issue. Human and ecological health are connected in many ways and the ripple effects are often not recognized. For example, human health may be affected by injury to the environment, which affects the economy and the culture (Harper and Harris, 1999).

Native American subsistence fishers should be treated as a special high-risk group of fish consumers distinct from fishers in the general population and5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-9 distinct even from other Native American fish consumers living in more suburbanized communities. Table 5-2 compares fish consumption rates for various fisher populations within the general population and in several surveys of specific Native American tribal populations. EPA currently recommends default fish consumption rates of 17.5 g/d for the general and recreational fishers
an d 142.4 g/d for subsistence fishers. However, the tribal population fish consumption studies show that some Native American tribal members living in river-based communities (CRITFC, 1994) eat from 3 to 22 times more fish (from 59 g/d up to 390 g/d) than do recreational fishers, but that traditional Native American subsistence fishing families may eat up to 30 times more fish, almost 1.2 lb/d (540 g/d) (Harris and Harper, 1997). The fish consumption rate from Harris and Harper (1997) for Native American subsistence fishers is also 3.8 times higher than the EPA default consumption rate for subsistence fishers (142.4 g/d) in the general population. The difference in fish consumption is due to the fact that the Native American subsistence fisher’s lifestyle is not the same
as a recreational fisher’s lifestyle with additional fish consumption added, nor is it the same as the “average” Native American tribal member living in a fairly suburbanized tribal community. In addition to exposures from direct consumption of contaminated fish, Native American subsistence fishers also receive more exposure to the water and sediments associated with catching and preparing fish and possibly from drinking more unfiltered river water than more suburbanized tribal community members as well. The Native American subsistence fishing population should be treated as a separate group with a unique lifestyle, distinct from recreational and subsistence fishers in the general U.S. population and also distinct from other Native American fisher populations.

5.1.3.3 Risk Level (RL)—

In this guidance document, EPA’s Office of Water uses an RL of 10 -5 to calculate screening values for the general adult population. However, states have the flexibility to choose to use an appropriate RL value typically ranging from 10 -4 to 10 -7

. This is the range of risk levels employed in various U.S. EPA programs. Selection of the appropriate RL is a risk management decision that is made by the state.

5.2 SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

Target analyte SVs, and the dose-response variables used to calculate them, are given in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. The SVs are provided as default values for the states to use when site-specific information on variables such as consumption rates are not available for local recreational or subsistence fisher populations.5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-10 Table 5-2. Fish Consumption Rates for Various Fisher Populations

Source Recreational

Fishers (g/d) Subsistence

Fishers (g/d) Native American

Subsistence Fishers (g/d) Native Americans (g/d) Basis for Consumption Rate
U.S. EPA 17.5 a 142.4 a 70 (mean) b
170 (95 th percentile) b NA Fish consumption rate from 1994 and 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII)
Harris and Harper (1997) NA NA 540 (fresh, smoked and dried) NA Surveyed members of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
CRITFC (1994) NA NA NA 59 (mean) 170 (95 th percentile) 390 (99 th percentile) Surveyed members of the Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes Toy et al. (1996) NA NA NA 53 (median, males) 34 (median, females )
66 (median, males) 25 (median, females) Surveyed members of the Tulalip Tribe
Surveyed members of the Squaxin Island Tribe

a These values were revised in this 3 rd edition of Volume 1 of this series (USDA/ARS, 1998)
b These values are from EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997b)

These SVs were calculated from Equations 5-4 or 5-5 using the following values for BW, CR, and RL and the most current IRIS values for oral RfDs and CSFs (IRIS, 1999) unless otherwise noted:

C For noncarcinogens:

BW = 70 kg, average adult body weight CR = 17.5 g/d (0.0175 kg/d), estimate of average consumption of uncooked fish and shellfish from estuarine and fresh waters by recreational fishers, or

= 142 .4 g/d (0.1424 kg/d), estimate of average consumption of uncooked fish and shellfish from estuarine and freshwaters by subsistence fishers.

C For carcinogens:
BW and CR, as above

RL = 10 -5

, a risk level corresponding to one excess case of cancer per 100,000 individuals exposed over a 70-yr lifetime.

If both oral RfD and CSF values are available for a given target analyte, SVs for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects are listed in Table 5-2 for recreational fishers and Table 5-3 for subsistence fishers. Unless otherwise indicated,5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-11 Table 5-3. Dose-Response Variables and Recommended Screening Values (SVs) for Target Analytes - Recreational Fishers a

Target analyte Noncarcinogens RfD (mg/kg-d) Carcinogens

CSF (mg/kg-d) -1 SV b (ppm)

Noncarcinogens b Carcinogens b (RL=10 -5 )
Metals Arsenic (inorganic) c 3 x 10 -4 1.5 1.2 0.026 Cadmium 1 x 10 -3 NA 4.0

- Mercury (methylmercury) d 1 x 10 -4 NA 0.4

- Selenium 5 x 10 -3 NA 20

- Tributyltin e 3 x 10 -4 NA 1.2

- Organochlorine PesticidesTotal chlordane (sum of cis- and transchlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane) f 5 x 10 -4 0.35 2.0 0.114

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) g 5 x 10 -4 0.34 2.0 0.117

Dicofol h 4 x 10 -4 NA i 1.6 2.5 Dieldrin 5 x 10 -5 16 0.2 2.50 x 10 -3 Endosulfan (I and II) j 6 x 10 -3 NA 24

- Endrin 3 x 10 -4 NA 1.2

- Heptachlor epoxide 1.3 x 10 -5 9.1 5.2 x 10 -2 4.39 x 10 -3 Hexachlorobenzene 8 x 10 -4 1.6 3.2 2.50 x 10 -2 Lindane (g-hexachlorocyclohexane; g-HCH) k 3 x 10 -4 1.3 1.2 3.07 x 10 -2

Mirex 2 x 10 -4 NA l 0.8

- Toxaphene j,m 2.5 x 10 -4 1.1 1.0 3.63 x 10 -2 Organophosphate Pesticides Chlorpyrifos n 3 x 10 -4 NA 1.2

- Diazinon o 7 x 10 -4 NA 2.8

- Disulfoton 4 x 10 -5 NA 0.16

- Ethion 5 x 10 -4 NA 2.0

- Terbufos p 2 x 10 -5 NA 0.08

- Chlorophenoxy Herbicides Oxyfluorfen q 3 x 10 -3 7.32 x 10 -2 12 5.46 x 10 -1 PAHs r NA 7.3

- 5.47 x 10 -3 PCBs Total PCBs s 2 x 10 -5 2.0 0.08 0.02 Dioxins/furans t NA 1.56 x 10 5

- 2.56 x 10 -7

NA = Not available in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS, 1999). DDD = p,p’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDT = p,p’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DDE = p,p’-dichlorodiphenlydichloroethylene PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl RfD = Oral reference dose (mg/kg-d) CSF = Cancer slope factor (mg/kg-d) -15. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-12 Table 5-3. (continued)

a Based on fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/d, 70kg body weight and, for carcinogens, 10 -5 risk level and 70-yr lifetime. Unless otherwise noted, values listed are the most current oral RfDs and CSF in EPA’s IRIS database (IRIS, 1999).
b The shaded screening value (SV) is the recommended SV for each target analyte. States should note that the screening values listed may be below analytical detection limits achievable for some of the target analytes. Please see Table 8-4 for detection limits.

c Total inorganic arsenic rather than total arsenic should be determined. d Because most mercury in fish and shellfish tissue is present primarily as methylmercury (NAS, 1991;Tollefson, 1989) and because of the relatively high cost of analyzing for methylmercury, it is recommended that total mercury be analyzed and the conservative assumption be made that all mercury is present as methylmercury. This approach is deemed to be most protective of human health and most cost-effective. The National Academy of Sciences conducted an independent assessment of the RfD for methylmercury. They concluded that “On the basis of its evaluation, the committee’s consensus is that the value of EPA’s current RfD for methylmercury, 0.1 F g/kg per day, is a scientifically justifiable level for the protection of human health”.

e The RfD value listed is for tributyltin oxide (IRIS, 1999).
f The RfD and CSF values listed are derived from studies using technical-grade chlordane (IRIS, 1999) for the cis- and trans -chlordane isomers or the major chlordane metabolite, oxychlordane, or for the chlordane impurities cis- and trans -nonachlor. It is recommended that total chlordane be determined by summing the concentrations of cis - and trans -chlordane, cis - and trans -nonachlor, and oxychlordane.
g The RfD value listed is for DDT. The CSF value (0.34) is for total DDT sum of DDT, DDE and DDD); the CSF value for DDD is 0.24. It is recommended that the total concentration of DDT include the 2,4'- and 4,4'-isomers of DDT and its metabolites, DDE and DDD.
h The RfD value is from Office of Pesticide Programs Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Dicofol (EPA, 1998c).
i The CSF for dicofol was withdrawn from IRIS pending further review by the CRAVE Agency Work Group (IRIS, 1999). j The RfD value listed is from the Office of Pesticide Program’s Reference Dose Tracking Report (U.S. EPA, 1997).
k IRIS (1999) has not provided a CSF for lindane. The CSF value listed for lindane was calculated from the water quality criteria (0.063 mg/L) (U.S. EPA, 1992f).
l No CSF or cancer classification is available for mirex. This compound is undergoing further review by the CRAVE Agency Work Group (IRIS, 1999)

m The RfD value has been agreed upon by the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Water.

n Because of the potential for adverse neurological developmental effects from chlorpyrifos, EPA recommends the use of a Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) of 3 x 10 -5 for infants, children under the age of 6 years, and women ages 13 to 50 years (U.S. EPA, 2000b).

o The RfD value is from a memorandum dated April 1, 1998, Diazinon:-Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. HED Doc. No. 012558.
p The RfD value listed is from a memorandum dated September 25, 1997; Terbufos-FQPA Requirement- Report of the Hazard Idenification Review.
q The CSF value is from the Office of Pesticide Programs List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential (U.S. EPA, 1999b).

r The CSF value listed is for benzo[ a ]pyrene. Values for other PAHs are not currently available in IRIS (1999). It is recommended that tissue samples be analyzed for benzo[ a ]pyrene and 14 other PAHs, and that the order-of-magnitude relative potencies given for these PAHs (Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1993c) be used to calculate a potency equivalency concentration (PEC) for each sample (see Section 5.3.2.4).

s Total PCBs may be determined as the sum of congeners or Aroclors. The RfD is based on Aroclor 1254 and should be applied to total PCBs. The CSF is based on a carcinogenicity assessment of Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016. The CSF presented is the upperbound slope factor for food chain exposure. The central estimate is 1.0 (IRIS, 1999).
t The CSF value listed is for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (HEAST, 1997). It is recommended that the 17 2,3,7,8-substituted tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo- p -dioxins and dibenzofurans and the 12 dioxin-like PCBs be determined and a toxicity-weighted total concentration be calculated for each sample, using the method for estimating toxicity equivalency concentrations (TEQs) (Van den Berg et al., 1998).5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-13 Table 5-4. Dose-Response Variables and Recommended Screening Values (SVs) for Target Analytes - Subsistence Fishers a

Target analyte Noncarcinogens RfD (mg/kg-d) Carcinogens

CSF (mg/kg-d) -1 SV b (ppm)

Noncarcinogens b Carcinogens b (RL=10 -5 ) Metals Arsenic (inorganic) c 3 x 10 -4 1.5 0.147 3.27 x 10 -3 Cadmium 1 x 10 -3 NA 0.491

- Mercury (methylmercury) d 1 x 10 -4 NA 0.049

- Selenium 5 x 10 -3 NA 2.457

- Tributyltin e 3 x 10 -4 NA 0.147

- Organochlorine PesticidesTotal chlordane (sum of cis- and transchlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane) f 5 x 10 -4 0.35 0.245 1.40 x 10 -2

Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) g 5 x 10 -4 0.34 0.245 1.44 x 10 -2

Dicofol h 4 x 10 -4 NA i 0.196

- Dieldrin 5 x 10 -5 16 0.024 3.07 x 10 -4 Endosulfan (I and II) j 6 x 10 -3 NA 2.949

- Endrin 3 x 10 -4 NA 0.147

- Heptachlor epoxide 1.3 x 10 -5 9.1 6.39 x 10 -3 5.40 x 10 -4 Hexachlorobenzene 8 x 10 -4 1.6 0.393 3.07 x 10 -3 Lindane ( γ

-hexachlorocyclohexane; γ -HCH) k 3 x 10 -4 1.3 0.147 3.78 x 10 -3
Mirex 2 x 10 -4 NA l 0.098

- Toxaphene j,m 2.5 x 10 -4 1.1 0.122 4.46 x 10 -3 Organophosphate Pesticides Chlorpyrifos n 3 x 10 -4 NA 0.147

- Diazinon o 7 x 10 -4 NA 0.344

- Disulfoton 4 x 10 -5 NA 0.019

- Ethion 5 x 10 -4 NA 0.245

- Terbufos p 2 x 10 -5 NA 0.009

- Chlorophenoxy Herbicides Oxyfluorfen q 3 x 10 -3 7.32 x 10 -2 1.474 6.71 x10 -2 PAHs r NA 7.3

- 6.73 x 10 -4 PCBs Total PCBs s 2 x 10 -5 2.0 9.83 x 10 -3 2.45 x 10 -3 Dioxins/furans t NA 1.56 x 10 5

- 3.15 x 10 -8

NA = Not available in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS, 1999). DDD = p,p’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDT = p,p’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DDE = p,p’-dichlorodiphenlydichloroethylene PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl RfD = Oral reference dose (mg/kg-d) CSF = Cancer slope factor (mg/kg-d) -15. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-14 Table 5-4. (continued)

a Based on fish consumption rate of 142.4 g/d, 70kg body weight and, for carcinogens, 10 -5 risk level and 70-yr lifetime. Unless otherwise noted, values listed are the most current oral RfDs and CSF in EPA’s IRIS database (IRIS, 1999)
b The shaded screening value (SV) is the recommended SV for each target analyte. States should note that the screening values listed may be below analytical detection limits achievable for some of the target analytes. Please see Table 8-4 for detection limits.

c Total inorganic arsenic rather than total arsenic should be determined. d Because most mercury in fish and shellfish tissue is present primarily as methylmercury (NAS, 1991;Tollefson, 1989) and because of the relatively high cost of analyzing for methylmercury, it is recommended that total mercury be analyzed and the conservative assumption be made that all mercury is present as methylmercury. This approach is deemed to be most protective of human health and most cost-effective. The National Academy of Sciences conducted an independent assessment of the RfD for methylmercury. They concluded that “On the basis of its evaluation, the committee’s consensus is that the value of EPA’s current RfD for methylmercury, 0.1 F g/kg per day, is a scientifically justifiable level for the protection of human health”.

e The RfD value listed is for tributyltin oxide (IRIS, 1999).
f The RfD and CSF values listed are derived from studies using technical-grade chlordane (IRIS, 1999) for the cis- and trans -chlordane isomers or the major chlordane metabolite, oxychlordane, or for the chlordane impurities cis- and trans -nonachlor. It is recommended that total chlordane be determined by summing the concentrations of cis - and trans -chlordane, cis - and trans -nonachlor, and oxychlordane.
g The RfD value listed is for DDT. The CSF value (0.34) is for total DDT sum of DDT, DDE and DDD); the CSF value for DDD is 0.24. It is recommended that the total concentration of DDT include the 2,4'- and 4,4'-isomers of DDT and its metabolites, DDE and DDD.
h The RfD value is from Office of Pesticide Programs Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Dicofol (EPA, 1998c).
i The CSF for dicofol was withdrawn from IRIS pending further review by the CRAVE Agency Work Group (IRIS, 1999). j The RfD value listed is from the Office of Pesticide Program’s Reference Dose Tracking Report (U.S. EPA, 1997).
k IRIS (1999) has not provided a CSF for lindane. The CSF value listed for lindane was calculated from the water quality criteria (0.063 mg/L) (U.S. EPA, 1992f).
l No CSF or cancer classification is available for mirex. This compound is undergoing further review by the CRAVE Agency Work Group (IRIS, 1999)

m The RfD value has been agreed upon by the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Water.

n Because of the potential for adverse neurological developmental effects from chlorpyrifos, EPA recommends the use of a Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) of 3 x 10 -5 for infants, children under the age of 6 years, and women ages 13 to 50 years (U.S. EPA, 2000b).

o The RfD value is from a memorandum dated April 1, 1998, Diazinon:-Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. HED Doc. No. 012558.
p The RfD value listed is from a memorandum dated September 25, 1997; Terbufos-FQPA Requirement- Report of the Hazard Idenification Review.
q The CSF value is from the Office of Pesticide Programs List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential (U.S. EPA, 1999b).

r The CSF value listed is for benzo[ a ]pyrene. Values for other PAHs are not currently available in IRIS (1999). It is recommended that tissue samples be analyzed for benzo[ a ]pyrene and 14 other PAHs, and that the order-of-magnitude relative potencies given for these PAHs (Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1993c) be used to calculate a potency equivalency concentration (PEC) for each sample (see Section 5.3.2.4).

s Total PCBs may be determined as the sum of congeners or Aroclors. The RfD is based on Aroclor 1254 and should be applied to total PCBs. The CSF is based on a carcinogenicity assessment of Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016. The CSF presented is the upperbound slope factor for food chain exposure. The central estimate is 1.0 (IRIS, 1999).
t The CSF value listed is for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (HEAST, 1997). It is recommended that the 17 2,3,7,8-substituted tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo- p -dioxins and dibenzofurans and the 12 dioxin-like PCBs be determined and a toxicity-weighted total concentration be calculated for each sample, using the method for estimating toxicity equivalency concentrations (TEQs) (Van den Berg et al., 1998).5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-15 the lower of the two SVs (generally, the SV for carcinogenic effects) should be used for the respective fisher population. EPA recommends that the SVs in the shaded boxes (Tables 5-3 and 5-4 ) be used by states when making the decision to implement Tier 2 intensive monitoring. However, states may choose to adjust these SVs for specific target analytes for the protection of sensitive populations (e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children or for recreational or subsistence fishers based on site-specific consumption rates). EPA recognizes that states may use higher CRs that are more appropriate for recreational and subsistence fishers in calculating SVs for use in their jurisdictions rather than the EPA default values of 17.5 g/d CR for recreational fishers used to calculate the SVs shown in Table 5-3 and the 142.4 g/d CR for subsistence fishers used to calculate the SVs shown in Table 5-4.

Note: States should use the same SV for a given target analyte in both screening and intensive studies. Therefore, it is critical that states clearly define their program objectives and accurately characterize the target fish-consuming population(s) of concern to ensure that appropriate SVs are selected. If the selected analytical methodology is not sensitive enough to reliably quantitate target analytes at or below selected SVs (see Section 8.2.2 and Table 8-4), program managers must determine appropriate fish consumption guidance based
on the lowest detectable concentrations or provide justification for adjusting SVs to values at or above achievable method detection limits. It should be emphasized that when SVs are below method detection limits, the failure to detect a target analyte cannot be assumed to indicate that there is no cause for concern for human health effects.

States should recognize the importance of ensuring that the analytical method selected for quantification of any target analyte must have a method detection limit (MDL) lower than the risk-based screening values calculated using the EPA methodology for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects of the target analyte. If the method detection limit for a specific target analyte is higher than the target analyte SV, the following procedure is recommended as a means to reduce the problem of interpreting data results for chemicals that fall in this category. For example, if fish tissue residue values for several replicate samples are above the MDL while other data values are reported as below the method detection limit (<MDL) including not detected (e.g., no observed response), the state may make a risk management decision to use a value of one-half the MDL as the residue concentration in their risk assessment for those data below the MDL rather than using a value of zero. In this way, the calculated mean target analyte concentration for a group of replicate samples may be higher than the SV. If all of the replicate samples from a particular monitoring site are below the MDL or are not detec ted, the state may choose to use one-half MDL value for all not detected values rather than a value of zero. The use of one-half MDL rather than zero for these data (< MDL) is a risk management policy decision that should be made by the state.

For noncarcinogens, adjusted SVs should be calculated from Equation 5-4 using appropriate alternative values of BW and/or CR. For carcinogens, adjusted SVs5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-16 should be calculated from Equation 5-5 using an RL ranging from 10 -4 to 10 -7 and/or sufficiently protective alternative values of BW and CR. Examples of SVs calculated for selected populations of concern and for RL values ranging from 10 -4 to 10 -7 are given in Table 5-5.

The need to accurately characterize the target fisher population of interest in order to establish sufficiently protective SVs cannot be overemphasized. For example, the recommended consumption rate of 142.4 g/d for subsistence fishers may be an underestimate of consumption rate and exposures for some
su bsistence populations such as Native American subsistence fishers (see Section 5.1.3.2). In a recent study of a Native American subsistence fishing population, an average daily consumption rate for these subsistence fishers was estimated to be 540 g/d (Harris and Harper, 1997). Using this average consumption rate and an estimated average body weight of 70 kg, the SV for cadmium (RfD = 1 x 10 -3 mg/kg/d) is, from Equation 5-4,
SV = (0.001 mg/kg-d • 70 kg) / (0.540 kg/d) = 0.129 mg/kg (ppm). (5-7)

This value is almost four times lower than the SV of 0.491 ppm for cadmium based on the EPA default consumption rate of 142.4 g/d for subsistence fishers, as shown in Table 5-4.

5.3 COMPARISON OF TARGET ANALYTE CONCENTRATIONS WITH SCREENING VALUES

As noted previously, the same SV for a specific target analyte should be used in

both the screening and intensive studies. The measured concentrations of target analytes in fish or shellfish tissue should be compared with their respective SVs in both screening and intensive studies to determine the need for additional monitoring and risk assessment.

Recommended procedures for comparing target analyte concentrations with SVs
are provided below. Related guidance on data analysis is given in Section 9.1.

5.3.1 Metals

5.3.1.1 Arsenic—

Most of the arsenic present in fish and shellfish tissue is organic arsenic, primarily pentaval ent arsenobetaine, which has been shown in numerous studies to be metabolically inert and nontoxic (Brown et al., 1990; Cannon et al., 1983; Charbonneau et al., 1978; Bos et al., 1985; Kaise et al. 1985; Luten et al., 1982; Sabbioni et al., 1991; Siewicki, 1981; Bryce et al., 1982; Vahter et al., 1983; Yamauchi et al., 1986). Inorganic arsenic, which is of concern for human health effects (ATSDR, 1998a; WHO, 1989), is generally found in seafood at concentra-5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-17 Table 5-5. Example Screening Values (SVs) for Various Target

Populations and Risk Levels (RLs) a

Chemical Target population b CR c BW RfD CSF RL SV (ppm) Noncarcinogens Chlorpyrifos Recreational fisher 17.5 70 3 x 10 -4

— — 1.2 Children (<6 yr) 6.5 17 d 3 x 10 -5e

— — 0.078 Subsistence fisher 142.4 70 3 x 10 -4

— — 0.147 Cadmium Recreational fisher 17.5 70 1 x 10 -3

— — 4.0 Children 6.5 17 d 1 x 10 -3

— — 2.6 Subsistence fisher 142.4 70 1 x 10 -3

— — 0.491 Carcinogens
Lindane Recreational fisher 17.5 70

— 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 10 -4 10 -5 10 -6 10 -7 3.07 x 10 -1

3.07 x 10 -2 3.07 x 10 -3 3.07 x 10 -4
Children 6.5 17 d

— 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 10 -4 10 -5 10 -6 10 -7 1.98 x 10 -1

1.98 x 10 -2 1.98 x 10 -3 1.98 x 10 -4
Subsistence fisher 142.4 70

— 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 10 -4 10 -5 10 -6 10 -7 3.78 x 10 -2

3.78 x 10 -3 3.78 x 10 -4 3.78 x 10 -5 Toxaphene Recreational fisher 17.5 70

— 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 10 -4 10 -5 10 -6 10 -7 3.63 x 10 -1

3.63 x 10 -2 3.63 x 10 -3 3.63 x 10 -4
Children 6.5 17 d

— 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 10 -4 10 -5 10 -6 10 -7 2.35 x 10 -1

2.35 x 10 -2 2.35 x 10 -3 2.35 x 10 -4
Subsistence fisher 142.5 70

— 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 10 -4 10 -5 10 -6 10 -7 4.6 x 10 -2

4.6 x 10 -3 4.6 x 10 -4 4.6 x 10 -5
CR = Mean daily fish or shellfish consumption rate (uncooked weight), averaged over a 70-yr lifetime for the population of concern (g/d). BW = Mean body weight, estimated for the population of concern (kg). RfD = Oral reference dose for noncarcinogens (mg/kg-d). CSF = Oral slope factor for carcinogens (mg/kg-d) -1

. RL = Maximum acceptable risk level for carcinogens (dimensionless).

a See Equations 5-4 and 5-5. b See Tables 5-1, 5-2, 5-3 and 5-4 for information on target populations.

c To calculate SVs, the CRs given in this table must be divided by 1,000 to convert g/d to kg/d. d BW used is for children 3 to <6 yr (see Table 5-1). e Because of the potential for adverse neurological developmental effects, EPA recommends the use of a Population Adjusted Dose for chlorpyrifos of 3 x 10 -5 mg/kg-d for infants, children to the age of 6, and women ages 13 to 50 years (U.S. EPA, 2000b).5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-18 tions ranging from <1 to 20 percent of the total arsenic concentration (Edmonds and Francesconi, 1993; Nraigu and Simmons, 1990). It is recommended that, in both screening and intensive studies, total inorganic arsenic tissue concentrations be determined for comparison with the recommended SV for chronic oral exposure. This approach is more rigorous than the current FDArecommended method of analyzing for total arsenic and estimating inorganic arsenic concentrations based on the assumption that 10 percent of the total arsenic in fish tissue is in the inorganic form (U.S. FDA, 1993). Although the cost of analysis for inorganic arsenic (see Table 8-5) may be three to five times greater than for total arsenic, the increased cost is justified to ensure that the most accurate data are obtained for quantitative assessment of human health risks.

5.3.1.2 Cadmium, Mercury, and Selenium—

For cadmium, mercury, and selenium, the total metal tissue concentration should be determined for comparison with the appropriate target population SV.

Because most mercury in fish and shellfish tissue is present as methylmercury (Kannan et al., 1998; NAS, 1991; Tollefson, 1989), and because of the relatively high analytical cost for methylmercury, it is recommended that total mercury be determined and the conservative assumption be made that all mercury is present
as methylmercury. The determination of methylmercury in fish tissue is not recommended even though methylmercury is the compound of greatest concern for human health (NAS, 1991; Tollefson, 1989) and the recommended SVs are for methylmercury (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4). This approach is deemed to be most protective of human health and most cost-effective.

5.3.1.3 Tributyltin—

Tissue samples should be analyzed specifically for tributyltin for comparison with the recommended target population SVs for this compound (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4).

5.3.2 Organics

For each of the recommended organic target analytes that are single compounds, the determination of tissue concentration and comparison with the appropriate SV is straightforward. However, for those organic target analytes that include a parent compound and structurally similar compounds or metabolites (i.e., total chlordane, total DDT, endosulfan I and II) or that represent classes of compounds (i.e., PAHs, PCBs, dioxins/furans, or toxaphene), additional guidance is necessary to ensure that a consistent approach is used to determine app ropriate target analyte concentrations for comparison with recommended SVs.5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-19 5.3.2.1 Chlordane—

The SVs for total chlordane are derived from technical-grade chlordane. Oral
cancer slope factors are not available in IRIS (1999) for cis

- and trans- chlordane, cis

- and trans -nonachlor, and oxychlordane. At this time, as a conservative approach, EPA recommends that, in both screening and intensive studies, the concentrations of all chlordane constituents ( cis

- and trans -chlordane, cis

- and trans -nonachlor) and the metabolite of chlordane (oxychlordane) be determined and summed to give a total chlordane concentration for comparison with the recommended SVs (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4).

5.3.2.2 DDT—

DDT and its metabolites (i.e., the 4,4'- and 2,4'-isomers of DDE and DDD) are all

potent toxicants, DDE isomers being the most prevalent in the environment. As
a conservative approach, EPA recommends that, in both screening and intensive studies, the concentrations of 4,4'- and 2,4'-DDT and their 4,4' and 2,4'-DDE and DDD metabolites be determined and a total DDT concentration be calculated for comparison with the recommended SVs for total DDT (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4).

5.3.2.3 Endosulfan—

Endosulfan collectively refers to two stereoisomers designated I and II. At this time, for both screening and intensive studies, EPA recommends that the concentrations of the two endosulfan constituents (endosulfan I and II) be determined and summed to give a total endosulfan concentration for comparison with the recommended SVs for total endosulfan.

5.3.2.4 Toxaphene—

The SVs for toxaphene are derived from technical-grade toxaphene, a mixture of approximately 670 chlorinated camphenes (ATSDR, 1996). At this time, dete rmination of total toxaphene is recommended rather than individual congener analysis. Research is currently under way to determine the relative health risks of the toxaphene congeners. In the future, it may be possible to develop a congener-specific quantitative risk assessment approach for toxaphene similar to that for PCBs and dioxins/furans. The total toxaphene concentration should be analyzed for comparison with the recommended SVs for toxaphene (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4).

5.3.2.5 PAHs—

Although several PAHs have been classified as B2 carcinogens (probable human carcinogens), benzo[ a ]pyrene is the only PAH for which a CSF is currently available in IRIS (1999). As a result, EPA quantitative risk estimates for PAH mixtures have often assumed that all carcinogenic PAHs are equipotent to benzo[ a ]pyrene. The EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment has5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-20 Table 5-6. Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Various PAHs Compound Toxicity Equivalency Factor (TEF) Dibenz[ a,h ]anthracene 5 Benzo[ a ]pyrene 1 Benz[ a ]anthracene 0 Benzo[ b ]fluoranthene 0.1 Benzo[ k ]fluoranthene 0.1 Indeno[ 1,2,3-cd

]pyrene 0.1 Anthracene 0.01 Benzo[ g,h,i

]perylene 0.01 Chrysene 0.01 Acenaphthene 0.001 Acenaphthylene 0.001 Fluoranthene 0.001 Fluorene 0.001 Phenanthrene 0.001 Pyrene 0.001 Source: Nisbet and LaGoy (1992). issued guidance for quantitative risk assessment of PAHs (Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1993c) in which an estimated order of potential potency for 14 PAHs relative to benzo[ a ]pyrene is recommended, as shown in Table 5-6. Based on this guidance, EPA recommends that, in both screening and intensive studies, tissue samples be analyzed for the PAHs shown in Table 5-6 and that
a potency-weighted total concentration be calculated for each sample for comparison with the recommended SVs for benzo[ a ]pyrene (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4). This potency equivalency concentration should be calculated using the following equation:

PEC = 3
i (RP i · C i ) (5-8)

where

RP i = Relative potency for the ith PAH (from Table 5-6)

C i = Concentration of the ith PAH.

5.3.2.6 PCBs—

Using the approach for PCB analysis recommended by the EPA Office of Water (see Section 4.3.6), total PCB concentrations may be determined as the sum of Aroclor equivalents in screening studies. For intensive studies, the total PCB concentration should be determined as the sum of PCB congeners or the sum of homologue groups. The total PCB concentration should be compared with the recommended SVs for PCBs (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4). The EPA Office of Water recognizes the potential problems associated with PCB congener analysis (i.e.,5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-21 standard methods are not yet available but are under development, relatively high analytical cost, and limited number of qualified laboratories), but is recommending these methods for intensive studies because Aroclor analysis does not adequately represent bioconcentrated PCB mixtures found in fish tissue. EPA has developed a draft method for selected PCB congeners (M ethod 1668) (U.S. EPA, 1997a). This method is being tested and may be revised to include all PCB congeners. Currently, Method 680 is available for PCB homologue analysis.

5.3.2.7 Dioxins and Dibenzofurans—

Note: At this time, EPA’s Office of Research and Development is reevaluating the potency of dioxins/furans. Consequently, the following recommendation may change pending the results of this reevaluation.

It is recommended in both screening and intensive studies that the 17 2,3,7,8- substitute d tetra- through octa-chlorinated PCDDs and PCDFs and the 12 coplanar congeners with dioxin-like effects be determined and that a toxicityweighted total concentration be calculated for each sample for comparison with the recommended SVs for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4).

The method for estimating total TEQ (Van den Berg et al., 1998) should be used to estimate TCDD equivalent concentrations according to the following equation:

TEQ = 3

i (TEF i • C i ) (5-9)

where

TEF i = Toxicity equivalency factor for the ith congener (relative to 2,3,7,8-

TCDD)

C i = Concentration of the ith congener.

TEFs for the 2,3,7,8-substituted tetra- through octa-PCDDs and PCDFs and the 12 dioxin-like PCBs are shown in Table 5-7. Note: TEFs for five congeners have changed over those TEFs recommended by Barnes and Bellin (1989).5. SCREENING VALUES FOR TARGET ANALYTES

5-22Table 5-7. Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Tetrathrough Octa-Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans

and Dioxin-Like PCBs Analyte Old TEF-89 TEF-98 Dioxins a 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.00 1.00 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.50 1.00* 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.01 OCDD 0.001 0.0001* Furans a 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.10 0.10 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.05 0.50 0.05 0.50 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 OCDF 0.001 0.0001* PCBs 3,3',4,4'-TetraCB (77) 3,4,4',5-TetraCB (81) 0.0005 not available 0.0001* 0.0001* 2,3,3',4,4'-PentaCB (105) 2,3,4,4',5-PentaCB (114) 2,3',4,4',5-PentaCB (118) 2',3,4,4',5-PentaCB (123) 3,3',4,4',5-PentaCB (126) 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.1 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.1 2,3,3',4,4',5-HexaCB (156) 2,3,3',4,4',5'-HexaCB (157) 2,3',4,4',5,5'-HexaCB (167) 3,3',4,4',5,5'-HexaCB (169) 2,3,3',4,4',5,5--HexaCB (189) 0.0005 0.0005 0.00001 0.01 0.0001 0.0005 0.0005 0.00001 0.01 0.0001
Sources: Barnes and Bellin, 1989; Van den Berg et al., 1998. *Note: TEF-98 value changed from TEF-89 value.

a TEFs for all non-2,3,7,8-substituted congeners are zero.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-1 

## SECTION 6

**FIELD PROCEDURES**
This section provides guidance on sampling design of screening and intensive studies and recommends field procedures for collecting, preserving, and shipping samples to a processing laboratory for target analyte analysis. Planning and documentation of all field procedures are emphasized to ensure that collection activities are cost-effective and that sample integrity is preserved during all field activities. This section also describes the implications that result when deviations occur in the recommended study design. Some of the deviations in study design most likely to occur include the use of unequal numbers of fish in composite samples, unequal numbers of replicate samples collected at different stations, and sizes of fish within a composite sample exceeding the recommendation for composite samples.

**6.1 SAMPLING DESIGN**
Prior to initiating a screening or intensive study, the program manager and field sampling staff should develop a detailed sampling plan. As described in Section 2, there are seven major parameters that must be specified prior to the initiation of any field collection activities:

 Site selection

 Target species (and size class)

 Target analytes

 Target analyte screening values  Sampling times

 Sample type

 Replicate samples.

In addition, personnel roles and responsibilities in all phases of the fish and shellfish sampling effort should be defined clearly. All aspects of the final sampling design for a state's fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring program should be documented clearly by the program manager in a Work/QA Project Plan (see Appendix I). Routine sample collection procedures should be prepared as standard operating procedures (U.S. EPA, 1984b) to document the specific methods used by the state and to facilitate assessment of final data quality and comparability.
The seven major parameters of the sampling plan should be documented on a sample request form prepared by the program manager for each sampling site. The sample r equest form should provide the field collection team with r eadily available information on the study objective, site location, site name/number, target species and alternate species to be collected, target analytes to be evaluated, anticipated sampling dates, sample type to be collected, number and**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-2 size range of individuals to be collected for each composite sample, sampling method to be used, and number of replicates to be collected. An example of a sample request form is shown in Figure 6-1. The original sample request form should be filed with the program manager and a copy kept with the field logbook. The seven major parameters that must be specified in the sampling plan for screening and intensive studies are discussed in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, respectively.
**6.1.1 Screening Studies (Tier 1)**
The primary aim of screening studies is to identify frequently fished sites where commonly consumed fish and shellfish species are chemically contaminated and may pose a risk to human health. Ideally, screening studies should include all waterbodies where commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing and shellfish harvesting are practiced.

**6.1.1.1 Site Selection**

& Sampling sites should be selected to identify extremes of the bioaccumulation spectrum, ranging from presumed undisturbed reference sites to sites where existing data (or the presence of potential pollutant sources) suggest significant chemical contamination. Where resources are limited, states initially should target those harvest sites suspected of having the highest levels of contamination and of posing the greatest potential health risk to local fish and shellfish consumers. Screening study sites should be located in frequently fished areas near

 Point source discharges such as

& Industrial or municipal discharges

& Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)

& Urban storm drains

 Nonpoint source inputs such as

& Landfills, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites, or Superfund Comprehensive Environmental Res ponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites

& Areas of intensive agricultural, silvicultural, or resource extraction activities or urban land development

& Areas receiving inputs through multimedia mechanisms such as hydrogeologic c onnections or atmos pheric deposition (e.g., areas affected by acid rain impacts, particularly lakes with pH <6.0 since elevated mercury concentrations in fish have been reported for such sites)

 Areas acting as potential pollutant sinks where contaminated sediments accumulate and bioaccumulation potential might be enhanced (i.e., areas where water velocity slows and organic-rich sediments are deposited)

 Areas where sediments are disturbed by dredging activities**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-3 **Figure 6-1. Example of a sample request form. 6. FIELD PROCEDURES** 

6-4  Unpolluted areas that can serve as reference sites for subsequent intensive studies or as "green areas" that states can designate for unrestricted consumption (see Appendix B). **Note:** Michigan sampled lakes that were in presumed unpolluted areas but discovered mercury contamination in fish from many of these areas and subsequently issued a fish consumption advisory for all of its inland lakes.
The procedures required to identify candidate screening sites near significant point source discharges are usually straightforward. It is often more difficult, however, to identify clearly defined candidate sites in areas affected by pollutants from nonpoint sources. For these sites, assessment information summarized in state Section 305(b) reports should be reviewed before locations are selected. State 305(b) reports are submitted to the EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division biennially and provide an inventory of the water quality in each state. The 305(b) reports often contain Section 319 nonpoint source assessment information that may be useful in identifying major sources of nonpoint source pollution to state waters. States may also use a method for targeting pesticide hotspots in estuarine watersheds that employs pesticide use estimates from NOAA's National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (Farrow et al., 1989).
It is important for states to identify and document at least a few unpolluted sites, particularly for use as reference sites in subsequent monitoring studies. Verification that targeted reference sites show acceptably low concentrations of contaminants in fish or shellfish tissues also provides at least partial validation of the methods used to select potentially contaminated sites. Clear differences between the two types of sites support the site-selection methodology and the assumptions about primary sources of pollution.
In addition to the intensity of subsistence, sport, or commercial fishing, factors that should be evaluated (Versar, 1982) when selecting fish and shellfish sampling sites include

 Proximity to water and sediment sampling sites

 Availability of data on fish or shellfish community structure

 Bottom condition

 Type of sampling equipment

 Accessibility of the site.
The most important benefit of locating fish or shellfish sampling sites near sites selected for water and sediment sampling is the possibility of correlating contaminant concentrations in different environmental compartments (water, sediment, and fish). Selecting sampling sites in proximity to one another is also more cost-effective in that it provides opportunities to combine sampling trips for different matrices.
Availability of data on the indigenous fish and shellfish communities should be considered in final site selection. Information on preferred feeding areas and**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-5 migration patterns is valuable in locating populations of the target species (Versar, 1982). Knowledge of habitat preference provided by fisheries biologists or commercial fishermen may significantly reduce the time required to locate a suitable population of the target species at a given site.
Bottom condition is another site-specific factor that is closely related to the ecology of a target fish or shellfish population (Versar, 1982). For example, if only soft-bottom areas are available at an estuarine site, neither oysters ( Crassostrea virginica ) nor mussels ( Mytilus edulis and M. californianus ) would likely be present because these species prefer hard substrates. Bottom condition also must be considered in the selection and deployment of sampling equipment. Navigation charts provide depth contours and the locations of large underwater obstacles in coastal areas and larger navigable rivers. Sampling staff might also consult commercial fishers familiar with the candidate site to identify areas where the target species congregates and the appropriate sampling equipment to use.
Another factor closely linked to equipment selection is the accessibility of the sampling site. For some small streams or land-locked lakes (particularly in mountainous areas), it is often impractical to use a boat (Versar, 1982). In such cases the sampling site should have good land access. If access to the site is by land, consideration should be given to the type of vegetation and local topography that could make transport of collection equipment difficult. If access to the sampling site is by water, consideration should be given to the location of boat ramps and marinas and the depth of water r equired to deploy the selected sampling gear efficiently and to operate the boat safely. Sampling equipment and use are discussed in detail in Section 6.2.1.
The selection of each sampling site must be based on the best professional judgment of the field sampling staff. Once the site has been selected, it should be plotted and numbered on the most accurate, up-to-date map available. Recent 7.5-minute (1:24,000 scale) maps from the U.S. Geologic Survey or blue line maps produced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are of sufficient detail and accuracy for sample site mapping. The type of sampling to be conducted, water depth, and estimated time to the sampling site from an access point should be noted. The availability of landmarks for visual or range fixes should be determined for each site, and biological trawl paths (or other sampling gear transects) and navigational hazards should be indicated. Additional information on site-positioning methods, including Loran-C, VIEWNAV, TRANSIT (NAVSAT), GEOSTAR, and the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS), is provided in Battelle (1986), Tetra Tech (1986), and Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990a).
Each sampling site must be described accurately because state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring data may be stored in a database available to users nationwide (see Section 9.2). For example, a sampling site may be defined as a 2-mile section of river (e.g., 1 mile upstream and 1 mile downstream of a reference point) or a 2-mile stretch of lake or estuarine/marine shoreline (U.S. EPA, 1990d). Each sampler should provide a detailed description of each site**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-6 using a 7.5-minute USGS map to determine the exact latitude and longitude coordinates for the reference point of the site. This information should be documented on the sample request form and field record sheets (see Section 6.2.3).
One additional consideration associated with sample site selection is whether the sampling area includes waters inhabited by threatened or enda ngered species. If such waterbodies are to be monitored, the state must obtain a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their sampling effort could potentially impact a freshwater species (U.S. DOI, 1999) or from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) if their sampling effort could potentially impact any marine or anadromous species (U.S. DOC, 1999a, 1999b) covered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.
A species is listed under one of two cat egories, end angered or threatened, depending on its status and the degree of threat it faces. An endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of all plant and animal species native to the United States that are candidates or proposed for possible addition to the Federal List. A complete listing of the current status of all threatened and endangered species as well as information about each USFWS region is available on-line on the USFWS website at **http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html**
Species information is also available by USFWS region having primary responsibility for that species. The seven major USFWS regions with their respective states are shown in Figure 6-2. States can obtain additional information by contacting the specific USFWS regional office and talking with the regional liaison for endangered species.
**Freshwater Threatened and Endangered Species**
State conservation agencies typically have cooperative agreements in place with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under these agreements, any qualified employee of the state agency may take those endangered species covered by the cooperative agreement for conservation programs. Such taking of these species may be done provided it does not result in the following:

 Death or permanent disabling of the specimen

 Rremoval of the specimen from the state where the taking occurred

 Introduction of the specimen so taken, or of any progeny derived from the specimen, into an area beyond the historical range of the species

 Holding of the specimen in captivity for a period of more than 45 consecutive days.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-7 Additionally, any employee of a state conservation agency that is operating a conservation program with the USFWS (in accordance with section 6(c) of the Endangered Species Act) may take those threatened species of wildlife that are covered by an approved cooperative agreement to carry out conservation programs. State agencies involved in designing and conducting fish sampling programs in freshwater systems may need to sample fish for human health risk assessments from areas inhabited by threatened or endangered species. In some of these waterbodies under study, threatened or endangered species may be collected incidental to the primary sampling objective. In these cases, the state agency involved in the primary sampling needs to check with the state conservation agency to determine whether a cooperative agreement between the state and the USFWS is in effect. Any questions about the permits for incidental taking of endangered or threatened species resulting from fish sampling programs should be reviewed with the appropriate USFWS regional endangered species liaison officer. If appropriate, the state must apply to the USFWS for an Incidental Take Permit (U.S. DOI, 1999). States are required to submit information on USFWS Form 3-200 with all of the following information provided as part of the permit application: **Figure 6-2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions. 6. FIELD PROCEDURES** 

6-8  A complete description of the sampling activity sought to be authorized

 The common and scientific names of the species sought to be covered by the permit, as well as the number, age, and sex of such species, if known.
The application must also include a conservation plan that specifies

 The impact that will likely result from such incidental taking

 What steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts, the funding that will be available to implement such steps, and the procedures to be used to deal with unforseen circumstances

 What alternative actions to such incidental taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed to be used

 Such other measures that the Director may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.
The completed application should be submitted to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services/Endangered Species Permits Attention: Regional Permit Coordinator (see addresses below for each of the seven USFWS regional offices)
Region 1 Pacific Region Eastside Federal Complex 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, OR 97232-4181
Region 2 Southwest Region P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306
Region 3 Great Lakes and Big Rivers Region 1 Federal Drive BHW Federal Building Fort Snelling, MN 55111
Region 4 Southeast Region 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30345-3319 Region 5 Northeast Region 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9589
Region 6 Mountain Prairie Region 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, CO 80228
Region 7 Alaska Region 300 Vintage Boulevard, Suite 201 Juneau, AK 99801-7125**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-9 States should expect to wait from 3 to 6 months to obtain such a permit and should plan and schedule their permit application submission accordingly.
**Marine or Anadromous Threatened and Endangered Species**
Each state that intends to sample fish as part of their tissue residue monitoring program and might collect e ndangered or threat ened marine or anadromous species incidental to the purpose of their monitoring effort, must apply to the NMFS for an Incidental Take Permit (U.S. DOC, 1999a). Application forms and detailed instructions for completing these permit applications are available for downloading on the Internet at url: **http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR3/Permits/ESAPermit.html** . Users should click on <<Incident Take of Listed Species>> under Activity Category and select the PDF or HTML instructions.
States are required to submit information about the following:

 Type of permit

 Date of application

 Name, address, telephone, and fax number of the applicant

 A description of the endangered or threatened species, by common and scientific name, and a description of the status distribution, seasonal distribution, habitat needs, feeding habits, and other biological requirements of the affected species

 A detailed description of the proposed sampling activity, including

& Anticipated dates and duration of sampling activity

& Specific location of the activity (latitude and longitude coordinates)

& An estimate of the total level of activity expected to be conducted
The application must also include a conservation plan based on the best scientific and commercial data available, which specifies

 Anticipated impact of the proposed activity on the listed species, including

& Estimated number of animals of the listed species and, if applicable, the subspecies or population group and range

& Type of anticipated taking, such as harassment, predation, competition for space and food, etc.

& Effects of the take on the listed species, such as descaling, altered spawning activities, potential for mortality**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-10  Anticipated impact of the proposed activity on the habitat of the species and the likelihood of restoration of the affected habitat

 Steps that will be taken to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts, including

& Specialized equipment, methods of conducting activities, or other means.

& Detailed monitoring plans

& Funding available to implement measures taken to monitor, minimize, and mitigate impacts.

 Alternative actions to such taking that were considered and the reasons why those alternatives are not being used.

 A list of all sources of data used in preparation of the plan, including reference reports, environmental assessments and impact statements, and personal communications with recognized experts on the species or activity who may have access to data not published in the current literature.
The application may be submitted electronically if possible (either by e-mail or by mailing a diskette), but one signed original of the complete application must be sent to
Chief, Endangered Species Division National Marine Fisheries Service, F/PR3 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Telephone (301) 713-1401, Fax (301) 713-0376
States should expect to wait from 3 to 6 months to obtain such a permit and should plan and schedule their permit application submission accordingly.
**Threatened or Endangered Sea Turtles**
States planning on sampling fish in marine waters inhabited by threat ened or endangered species of sea turtles must apply to the NMFS for a Sea Turtle Incidental Take Permit (U.S. DOC, 1999b).
Application forms and detailed instructions for completing these permit applications are available for downloading on the Internet at **http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR3/Permits/ESAPermit.html**

. States are required to submit a cover letter including information on the following:

 Type of permit

 Date of application**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-11  Name, address, telephone, and fax number of the applicant

 A description of each endangered or threatened sea turtle species impacted by the activity, by common and scientific name, and a description of the status, geographic distribution, seasonal distribution, habitat needs, feeding habits, and other biological requirements of the affected species

 A detailed description of the proposed sampling activity (fishery season), including

& Anticipated dates and duration of sampling activity

& Specific location of the activity (latitude and longitude coordinates) and fishery effort in that area

& Other relevant information (e.g., gear description.)
The application must also submit a Conservation Plan based on the best scientificand commercial data available. The Conservation Plan must emphasize techniques, gear types, and general practices to mitigate takes. The Conservation Plan may involve development of new gear types or modification of fishing practices and include the following information

 Anticipated impact of the activity on the listed species of sea turtle, including

& Estimated number of animals of the listed species impacted, their geographic range, and, if applicable, the subspecies or population group,

& Type of anticipated taking, such as capture, harassment, predation, competition for space and food, nature of injury

& Effects of the impact on the listed species, such as descaling, altered reproductive activities, potential for mortality, effects of repeated submergence

 Anticipated impact of the proposed activity on the habitat of the species and the likelihood of restoration of the affected habitat

 Steps that will be taken to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts, including

& Detailed monitoring plans (e.g., observer programs)

& Detailed enforcement plans (e.g., monitoring Turtle Excluder Device compliance)

& Specialized equipment, methods of conducting activities, or other mitigation techniques.

& Detailed funding plan to implement measures taken to monitor, minimize, and mitigate impacts.

 Alternatives to the activity considered and the reasons why those alternatives are not being used.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-12  A list of all sources of data used in preparation of the plan, including reference reports, environmental assessments and impact statements, and personal communications with recognized experts on the species or activity who may have access to data not published in the current literature.

 Other measures the Assistant Administrator of NMFS may require as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan.
The following criteria are considered for permit issuance:

 Status of the stock and/or species to be incidentally taken

 Likely direct and indirect impacts of the activity on sea turtles

 Availability and effectiveness of monitoring and enforcement programs

 Public comments received during the 30-day public notice and comment period

 Adequate funding for the Conservation Plan

 The fact that taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild.
An issued permit would

 Require regular reporting and rights of inspection

 Identify species and number of animals allowed to be taken incidentally

 Specify the authorized method of incidental taking

 Require proc edures for captured sea turtles (i.e., resuscitation techniques, disposal)

 Potentially impose administrative fees

 Establish duration of the permit

 Specify any other terms or conditions that the Assistant Administrator of NMFS identifies as necessary or appropriate

 The application may be submitted electronically if possible (either by e-mail or by mailing a diskette), but one signed original of the complete application must be sent to**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-13 Chief, Endangered Species Division National Marine Fisheries Service, F/PR 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Telephone (301) 713-1401, Fax (301) 713-0376
States should expect to wait from 3 to 6 months to obtain such a permit and should plan and schedule their permit application submission accordingly.
**6.1.1.2 Target Species and Size Class Selection**

& After reviewing information on each sampling site, the field collection staff should identify the target species that are likely to be found at the site. Target species recommended for screening studies in freshwater systems are shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-4. Tables 3-10 through 3-16 list recommended species for estuarine/marine areas. In freshwater ecosystems, one bottom-feeding and one predator fish species should be collected. In estuarine/marine ecosystems, either one bivalve species and one finfish species or two finfish species should be collected. Second- and third-choice target species should be selected in the event that the recommended target species are not collected at the site. The same criteria used to select the recommended target species (Section 3.2) should be used to select alternate target species. In all cases, the primary selection criterion should be that the target species is commonly consumed locally and is of harvestable size.
EPA recognizes that resource limitations may influence the sampling strategy selected by a state. If monitoring resources are severely limited, precluding performance of any Tier 2 intensive studies (Phase I and Phase II), EPA recommends three sampling options to states for collecting additional samples during the screening studies. These options are:
1. Collecting one composite sample for each of three size (age) classes of each target species 2. Collecting replicate composite samples for each target species 3. Collecting replicate composite samples for each of three size (age) classes of each target species.
Option 1 (single composite analysis for each of three size classes) provides additional information on size-specific levels of contamination that may allow states to issue an advisory for only the most contaminated size classes while allowing other size classes of the target species to remain open to fishing. The state could analyze the composite sample from the largest size class first. If any SVs are exceeded, analysis of the smaller size class composite samples could be conducted. This option, however, does not provide any additional information for estimating the variability of the contamination level in any specific size class. To obtain information for estimating the variability of the contamination level in the target species, states could separately analyze each individual fish specimen in**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-14 any composite that exceeded the SVs. **Note:** This option of analyzing individual fish within a composite sample is more resource-intensive with respect to analytical costs but is currently used by some Great Lakes states.
Option 2 (replicate analyses of one size class) provides additional statistical power that would allow states to estimate the variability of contamination levels within the one size class sampled; however, it does not provide information on size-specific contamination levels.
Option 3 (replicate analyses of three size classes) provides both additional information on size-specific contamination levels and additional statistical power to estimate the variability of the contaminant concentrations in each of three size classes of the target species. If resources are limited, the state could analyze the replicate samples for the largest size class first; if the SVs are exceeded, analysis of the smaller size class composite samples could then be conducted.

**Note:** The correlation between increasing size (age) and contaminant tissue concentration observed for some freshwater finfish species (Voiland et al., 1991) may be much less evident in estuarine/marine finfish species (G. Pollock, California Environmental Protection A gency, personal communication, 1993). The movement of estuarine and marine species from one niche to another as they mature may change their exposure at a contaminated site. Thus, size-based sampling in estuarine/marine systems should be conducted only when it is likely to serve a potential risk management outcome.
**6.1.1.3 Target Analyte Selection**

& All 25 recommended target analytes listed in Table 4-1 should be considered for inclusion in screening studies unless reliable historic tissue, sediment, or pollutant source data indicate that an analyte is not present at a level of concern for human health. Additional regional or site-specific target analytes should be included in screening studies when there is indication or concern that such contaminants are a potential health risk to local fish or shellfish consumers. Historic data on water, sediment, and tissue contamination and priority pollutant scans from known point source discharges or nonpoint source monitoring should be reviewed to determine whether analysis of additional analytes is warranted.
**6.1.1.4 Target Analyte Screening Values**

& To enhance national consistency in screening study data, states should use the target analyte screening values listed in Tables 5-3 and 5-4 to evaluate tissue contaminant data. Specific methods used to calculate SVs for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic target analytes, including examples of SVs calculated for selected subpopulations, are given in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. If target analytes different from those default SVs shown in Tables 5-3 and 5-4 are incl uded in a screening study, these calculation procedures should be used to estimate SVs based on typical exposure assumptions for the fish-consuming public for the**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-15 additional compounds. **Note:** If the state chooses to use a different risk level or consumption rate to address site-specific considerations, the corresponding SVs should be calculated prior to initiation of chemical analyses to ensure that the detection limits of the analytical proc edures are sufficiently low to allow reliable quantitation at or below the chosen SV. If analytical methodology is not sensitive enough to reliably quantitate target analytes at or below selected SVs (see Sections 5.2 and 8.2.2 and Table 8-4), program managers must determine appropriate fish consumption guidance based on lowest detectable concentrations or provide justification for adjusting SVs to values at or above achievable method detection limits. It should be emphasized that when SVs are below method detection limits, the failure to detect a target analyte cannot be assumed to indicate that there is no cause for concern for human health effects.
**6.1.1.5 Sampling Times**

&If program resources are sufficient, biennial screening of waterbodies is recommended where commercial, recreational, or subsistence harvesting is commonly practiced (as identified by the state). Data from these screenings can then be used in the biennial state 305(b) reports to document the extent of support of Clean Water Act goals. If biennial screening is not possible, then waterbodies should be screened at least once every 5 years.
Selection of the most appropriate sampling period is very important, particularly when screening studies may be conducted only once every 2 to 5 years. **Note:** For screening studies, sampling should be conducted during the period when the target species is most frequently harvested (U.S. EPA, 1989d; Versar, 1982).
In fresh waters, as a general rule, the most desirable sampling period is from late summer to early fall (i.e., August to October) (Phillips, 1980; Versar, 1982). The lipid content of many species (which represents an important reservoir for organic pollutants) is generally highest at this time. Also, water levels are typically lower during this time, thus simplifying collection procedures. This late summer to early fall sampling period should not be used, however, if (1) it does not coincide with the legal harvest season of the target species or (2) the target species spawns during this period. **Note:** If the target species can be legally harvested during its spawning period, however, then sampling to determine contaminant concentrations should be conducted during this time.
A third exception to the late summer to early fall sampling recommendation concerns monitoring for the organophosphate pesticides. Sampling for these compounds should be conducted during late spring or early summer within 1 to 2 months following pesticide application because these compounds are degraded and metabolized relatively rapidly compared to organochlorine pesticides. **Note:** The target species should be sampled during the spring only if the species can be legally harvested at this time.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-16 In estuarine and coastal waters, the most appropriate sampling time is during the period when most fish are caught and consumed (usually summer for recreational and subsistence fishers). For estuarine/marine shellfish (bivalve molluscs and crustaceans), two situations may exist. The legal harvesting season may be strictly controlled for fisheries resource management purposes or harvesting may be open year round. In the first situation, shellfish contaminant monitoring should be conducted during the legal harvest period. In the second situation, monitoring should be conducted to correspond to the period when the majority of harvesting is conducted during the legal season. state staff may have to consider different sampling times for target shellfish species if differences in the commercial and recreational harvesting period exist.
Ideally, the sampling period selected should avoid the spawning period of the target species, including the period 1 month before and 1 month after spawning, because many aquatic species are subject to stress during spawning. Tissue samples collected during this period may not always be representative of the normal population. For example, feeding habits, body fat (lipid) content, and respiration rates may change during spawning and may influence pollutant uptake and clearance. Collecting may also adversely affect some species, such as trout or bass, by damaging the spawning grounds. Most fishing regulations protectspawning periods to enhance propagation of important fishery species. Speciesspecific information on spawning periods and other life history factors is available in numerous sources (e.g., Carlander, 1969; Emmett et al., 1991; Pflieger, 1975; Phillips, 1980). In addition, digitized life history information is available in many states through the Multistate Fish and Wildlife Information Systems (1990) on the web at **http://fwie.fw.vt.edu**

. Exceptions to the recommended sampling periods for freshwater and estuarine/ marine habitats will be determined by important climatic, regional, or site-specific factors that favor alternative sampling periods. For many states, budgetary constraints may require that most sampling be conducted during June, July, and August when temporary help or student interns are available for hire. The actual sampling period and the rationale for its selection should be documented fully and the final data report should include an assessment of sampling period effects on the results.
**6.1.1.6 Sample Type**

& Composite samples of fish fillets or of the edible portions of shellfish are recommended for analysis of target analytes in screening studies (U.S. EPA 1987b; 1989d). For health risk assessments, the recommended composite sample type for chemical analysis should be based on both the study objectives and the sample type consumed by the target population of concern. For example, using skinless fillets for assessing mercury exposures for members of the general population and most recreational fishers is most conservative. Because mercury is differentially concentrated in muscle tissue, leaving the skin on the fish fillet actually results in a lower mercury concentration per gram of skin-**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-17 on fillet than per gram of skin-off fillet (Gutenmann and Lisk, 1991). In addition, few consumers in the general population eat the skin of the fish, which justifies its removal for analysis, particularly when monitoring concerns are directed solely at mercury contamination. Analysis of skinless fillets may also be more appropriate for some target species such as catfish and other scaleless finfish species. In contrast, using whole fish with skin-on as the sample type for assessing PCBs, dioxins/furans, or organochlorine pesticide exposures in populations of Native Americans, Asian Americans, Caribbean-Americans, or other ethnic groups that consume whole fish in a stew or s oup is warranted because these contaminants accumulate in fatty tissues of the fish. Cooking the whole fish to make a stew or soup releases the PCBs, dioxins/furans, or organochlorine contaminants into the broth; thus, the whole fish should beanalyzed to mirror the way the consumer prepares the fish. Similarly, using skinon fillets with belly-flap included for most other scaled fish to evaluate PCB,dioxin/furan, or organochlorine pesticide exposures in the general fishing population or among recreational fishers is appropriate since this is a standard filleting method (see Sections 7.2.2.6 and 7.2.2.7). This method also allows for the inclusion of the fatty belly flap tissue and skin in which organochlorines, PCBs, and dioxins/furans concentrate and takes into account the fact that some consumers may not neatly trim the more highly contaminated fatty tissue from the edible muscle fillet tissue.
For shellfish samples, the recommended composite sample type for chemical analysis also should be based on both the study objectives and the sample type consumed by the target population at risk. The specific tissues considered to be edible will vary among target shellfish species (see Section 7.2.4.4) based on local consumer preference. For example, several states (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York) have issued advisories for a variety of contaminants (PCBs, dioxins/furans, or cadmium) in specific glands or tissues of crustaceans such as lobsters and crabs. Some consumers of lobsters, Homarus americanus, enjoy eating the tomalley (digestive gland of the lobster), which has been shown to contain higher concentrations of chemical contaminants than the claw, leg, or tail meat typically consumed by members of the general population. For this reason, the tomalley s hould be analyzed separately if the target population consumes this organ so that a determination can be m ade as to whether contaminant concentrations in the tomalley only, or in the claw, leg, and tail meat are above levels of human health concern. Similarly, for the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, as well as other crab species, the hepatopancreas (digestive gland) is consumed by some individuals and has also been found to contain higher concentrations of contaminants than claw, leg, or body muscle tissue. If the target population of concern consumes the hepatopancreas, then to best evaluate the risk of consumption from this tissue, it should be analyzed separately from the claw, leg, and body muscle tissue. A precise description of the sample type (including the number and size of the individual crustaceans in the composite) should be documented in the program record for each target species.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-18 A similar situation exists with respect to selection of the appropriate sample typefor bivalve molluscs. For example, while most individuals in the general population consume whole oysters (e.g., Crassostrea virginica or C. gigas) , clams (e.g., Mercenaria mercenaria ) or mussels (e.g., Mytilus edulis or M. californianus ), only the adductor muscle tissue is typically consumed of the scallops ( Aropecten irradians or A. gibbus ). For bivalves in general, the adductor muscle is typically less contaminated than gill, mantle, and digestive organ tissues primarily due to the filter-feeding nature of these animals. Therefore, the adductor muscle of scallops should be analyzed separately for the general population. If the whole body of the scallop is to be consumed as part of a stew or soup by the target population of concern, the state should also conduct analysis of the whole body of the scallop as part of a risk assessment. A precise description of the sample type (including the number and size of the individual bivalves in the composite) should be documented in the program record for each target species.
For freshwater turtles also, the study objectives and sample type consumed by the target population at risk must be of primary consideration. However, EPA recommends use of individual turtle samples rather than composite samples for evaluating turtle tissue contamination. As with shellfish, the tissues of freshwater turtles considered to be edible vary based on the dietary and culinary practices of local populations (see Section 7.2.3.3). For example, New York and Minnesota have advisories for snapping turtles that recommend that consumers who wish to eat turtle meat should trim away all fat and discard the liver and eggs of the turtle (if they are still in the female’s body cavity) prior to cooking. These three tissues(fat, liver, and eggs) have been shown to accumulate extremely high concentrations of a variety of contaminants in comparison to muscle tissue (Bishop et al., 1996; Bonin et al. 1995; Bryan et al., 1987; H ebert et al., 1993; Olafsson et al., 1983; 1987; Ryan et al., 1986; and Stone et al., 1980). States should consider monitoring pollutant concentrations in all three tissues in addition to muscle tissue. If residue analysis reveals the presence of high concentrations of contaminants in liver, eggs, and fatty tissue, but not in the muscle tissue, then the state can make the general recommendation to consumers to discard the three most lipophilic tissues to reduce the risk of exposure. This action is most useful when such lipophilic contaminants such as dioxins/furans, PCBs, and organochlorine pesticides are the contaminants involved.

**Note:** Composite samples are homogeneous mixtures of samples from two or more individual organisms of the same species collected at a particular site and analyzed as a single sample. Because the costs of performing individual chemical analyses are usually higher than the costs of sample collection and preparation, composite samples are most cost-effective for estimating average tissue concentrations of target analytes in target species populations. Besides being cost-effective, composite samples also ensure adequate sample mass to allow analyses for all recommended target analytes. A disadvantage of using composite samples, however, is that extreme contaminant concentration values for individual organisms are lost.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-19 In screening studies, EPA recommends that states analyze one composite sample for each of two target species at each screening site. Organisms used in a composite sample

 Must all be of the same species

 Should satisfy any legal requirements of harvestable size or weight, or at least be of consumable size if no legal harvest requirements are in effect

 Should be of similar size so that the smallest individual in a composite is no less than 75 percent of the total length (size) of the largest individual

 Should be collected at the same time (i.e., collected as close to the same time as possible but no more than 1 week apart) [ **Note:** This assumes that a sampling crew was unable to collect all fish needed to prepare the composite sample on the same day. If organisms used in the same composite are collected on different days (no more than 1 week apart), they should be processed within 24 hours as described in Section 7.2 except that individual fish may have to be filleted and frozen until all the fish to be included in the composite are delivered to the laboratory. At that time, the composite homogenate sample may be prepared.]

 Should be collected in sufficient numbers to provide a 200-g composite homogenate sample of edible tissue for analysis of recommended target analytes.
Individual organisms used in composite samples must be of the same species because of the significant species-specific bioaccumulation potential. Accurate taxonomic i dentification is essential in preventing the mixing of closely related species with the target species. **Note:** Individuals from different species should not be used in a single composite sample (U.S. EPA, 1989d, 1990d).
For cost-effectiveness, EPA recommends that states collect only one size class for each target species and focus on the larger individuals commonly harvested by the local population. Ideally, each composite sample for a specific species should contain the same number of individual fish and the individuals within each target species composite should be of similar size within a target size range so that the composite samples for a particular species are comparable over a wide geographic area. This is particularly important when states want to compare data on an individual species that might be used to establish a statewide advisory.
For persistent chlorinated organic compounds (e.g., DDT, dioxin, PCBs, and toxaphene) and methylmercury, the larger (older) individuals within a population are generally the most contaminated (Phillips, 1980; Voiland et al., 1991). As noted earlier, this correlation between increasing size and increasing contaminant concentration is most striking in freshwater finfish species but is less evident in estuarine and marine species. Size is used as a surrogate for age, which**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-20 provides some estimate of the total time the individual organism has been at risk of exposure. Therefore, the primary target size range ideally should include the larger individuals harvested at each sampling site. In this way, the states will maximize their chances of detecting high levels of chemical contamination in the single composite sample collected for each target species. If this ideal condition cannot be met, the field sampling team should retain individuals of similar length that fall within a secondary target size range.
Individual organisms used in composite samples should be of similar size (WDNR, 1988). **Note:** Ideally, for fish or shellfish, the total length (or size) of the smallest individual in any composite sample should be no less than 75 percent of the total length (or size) of the largest individual in the composite sample (U.S. EPA, 1990d). For example, if the largest fish is 200 mm, then the smallest individual included in the composite sample should be at least 150 mm. In the California Mussel Watch Program, a predetermined size range (55 to 65 mm) for the target bivalves ( Mytilus californianus and M. edulis ) is used as a sample selection criterion at all sampling sites to reduce size-related variability (Phillips, 1988). Similarly, the Texas Water Commission (1990) specifies the target size range for each of the recommended target fish species collected in the state's fish contaminant monitoring program.
Individual organisms used in a composite sample ideally should be collected at the same time so that temporal changes in contaminant concentrations associated with the reproduction cycle of the target species are minimized.
Each composite sample should contain 200 g of tissue so that sufficient material will be available for the analysis of all recommended target analytes. A larger composite sample mass may be required when the number of target analytes is increased to address regional or site-specific concerns. However, the tissue mass may be reduced in the **Tier 2** intensive studies (Phase I and II) when a limited number of specific analytes of concern have been identified (see Section 7.2.2.9). Given the variability in size among target species, only approximate ranges can be suggested for the number of indivi dual organisms to collect to achieve adequate mass in screening studies (U.S. EPA, 1989d; Versar, 1982). For fish, 3 to 10 individuals should be collected for a composite sample for each target species; for shellfish, 3 to 50 individuals should be collected for a composite sample. In some cases, however, more than 50 small shellfish (e.g., mussels, shrimp, crayfish) may be needed to obtain the recommended 200-g sample mass. **Note:** The same number of individuals should be used in each composite sample for a given target species at each sampling site.
Deviations from the recommended study design have implications that may make the statistical analyses more complicated. The statistical methods for analyzing composite samples are made tractable and easier-to-use by simplifying the study design. Using equal numbers of fish in replicate composite samples is one way to do this. For example, with equal numbers of fish, the arithmetic average of the replicate composite measurements is an unbiased estimator of the population**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-21 mean. When unequal numbers are used, the arithmetic aver age is no l onger unbiased. Instead, a weighted average of the composite measurements is calculated, where the weight for each composite reflects the number of fish it is made up of. Oftentimes fish are lost or damaged prior to compositing. When several fish are damaged or lost, the allocation of the remaining fish to composites may be reconfigured to allow equal numbers of fish in composites. If this is not possible, care should be taken to adjust the statistical procedures to account for the unequal allocations.
The use of sizes of fish exceeding the size range recommended for compositing may introduce more variability. If it is the size range within each composite that is broadened (e.g., 100-200 mm instead of 150-200 mm), the variability within the composite may increase. If additional composites are made with fish exceeding the recommended size ranges (e.g., adding composites of fish of size 300-450 mm when the target size is no more t han 250 mm), this may increase the variability between composites of different size ranges. Overall inferences made from composites of different size ranges will have increased variability associated with them (e.g., wider confidence intervals).
Differences in the numbers of replicates at different sampling locations may complicate any comparisons to be made between locations or overall conclusions to be obtained by combining the results from different sampling locations. As with unequal numbers of fish in composites, unequal numbers of replicate samples complicate the statistical calculations. The appropriate weighted estimates should be used when combining information from different sampling locations. Consider, for instance, a state that monitors five lakes each year. If the state uses the same target fish species, the same number of fish per composite and the same size ranges, the overall mean level of contamination will be a straightforward average over the five locations if the same number of replicates are used at each location. However, if unequal numbers of replicates are used, the information contributed by each location is not the same and must be weighted accordingly.
As alluded to above, one limitation of using composite samples is that information on extreme levels of chemical contamination in individual organisms is lost. Therefore, EPA recommends that the residual individual homogenates be saved to allow for analyses of individual specimens if resources permit (Versar, 1982). Analysis of individual homogenates allows states to estimate the underlying population variance which, as described in Section 6.1.2.6, facilitates sample size determination for the intensive studies. Furthermore, individual homogenates may also be used to provide materials for split and spike samples for routine QC procedures either for composites or individual organisms (see Section 8.3). The circumstances in which the analysis of individual fish samples might be preferred over the analysis of composite samples is described in more detail in Appendix C.
Recommended sample preparation procedures are discussed in Section 7.2.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-22 **6.1.1.7 Replicate Samples**

& The collection of sufficient numbers of individual organisms from a target species at a site to allow for the independent preparation of more than one composite sample (i.e., sample replicates) is strongly encouraged but is **option** in screening studies. If resources and storage are available, single replicate (i.e., duplicate) composite samples should be collected at a minimum of 10 percent of the screening sites (U.S. EPA, 1990d). The collection and storage of replicate samples, even if not analyzed at the time due to inadequate resources, allow for followup QC checks. These sites should be identified during the planning phase and sample replication specifications noted on the sample request form. If replicate field samples are to be collected, states should follow the guidance provided in Section 6.1.2.7. **Note:** Additional replicates must be collected at each site for each target species if statistical comparisons with the target analyte SVs are required in the state monitoring programs. The statistical advantages of replicate sampling are discussed in detail in Section 6.1.2.7.
**6.1.2 Intensive Studies (Tier 2)**
The primary aim of intensive studies is to characterize the magnitude and geographic extent of contamination in harvestable fish and shellfish species at those screening sites where concentrations of target analytes in tissues were found to be above selected SVs. Intensive studies should be designed to verify results of the screening study, to identify specific fish and shellfish species andsize classes for which advisories should be issued, and to determine the geographic extent of the fish contamination. In addition, intensive studies should be designed to provide data for states to tailor their advisories based on theconsumption habits or sensitivities of specific local fish-consuming subpopulations.
State staff should plan the specific aspects of field collection activities for each intensive study site after a thorough review of the aims of intensive studies (Section 2.2) and the fish contaminant data obtained in the screening study. All the factors that influence sample collection activities should be considered and specific aspects of each should be documented clearly by the program manager on the sample request form for each site.

**6.1.2.1 Site Selection**

& Intensive studies should be conducted at all screening sites where the selected SV for one or more target analytes was exc eeded. The field collection staff should review a 7.5-minute (1:24,000 scale) USGS hydrologic map of the study site and all relevant water, sediment, and tissue contaminant data. The site selection factors evaluated in the screening study (Section 6.1.1.1) must be reevaluated before initiating intensive study sampling.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-23 States should conduct **Tier 2** intensive studies in two phases if program resources allow. **Phase I intensive studies** should be more extensive investigations of the magnitude of tissue contamination at suspect screening sites. **Phase II intensive studies**  should define the geographic extent of the contamination around these suspect screening sites in a variety of size (age) classes for each target species. The field collection staff must evaluate the accessibility of these additional sites and develop a sampling strategy that is scientifically sound and practicable.
Selection of Phase II sites may be quite straightforward where the source of pollutant introduction is highly localized or if site-specific hydrologic features create a significant pollutant sink where chemically contaminated sediments accumulate and the bioaccumulation potential might be enhanced (U.S. EPA, 1986d). For example, upstream and downstream water quality and sediment monitoring to bracket point source discharges, outfalls, and regulated disposal sites showing contaminants from surface runoff or leachate can often be used to characterize the geographic extent of the contaminated area. Within coves or small embayments where streams enter large lakes or estuaries, the geographic extent of contamination may also be characterized via multilocational sampling to bracket the areas of concern. Such sampling designs are clearly most effective where the target species are sedentary or of limited mobility (Gilbert, 1987). In addition, the existence of barriers to migration, such as dams, should be taken into consideration.
Site selection considerations should also include the number of samples necessary to characterize different waterbody types (lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal marine waters) based on both the hydrodynamics of the waterbody type including waterbody size as well as the inherent migratory nature of the species under consideration. Typically, as the size of a waterbody increases (from small lakes to larger lakes to Great Lakes or from streams, to rivers, to estuaries, to coastal marine waters), the number of samples that need to be collected to maintain a selected statistical power (i.e., 70 percent) as well as the number of sampling stations needed to define the area that should be under advisory both increase. For example, fish inhabiting relatively small lakes are likely to be exposed to a relatively homogeneous aquatic environment of contaminant concentrations. In a riverine, estuarine, or coastal situation, however, the hydrodynamics of the ecosystem can greatly affect the magnitude and nature of contamination in the water that fish encounter as they move up and downstream of areas with distinct nonpoint and point source inputs of contamination. Thus, the amount of time that any fish spends exposed to the contamination may be highly variable as compared to the relatively homogeneous exposures that might occur in smaller, less hydrologically dynamic lake ecosystems.
Overlayed on the hydrodynamic differences of each type of ecosystem and the spatial distribution of both nonpoint and point sources of pollution that can be encountered in larger ecosystems are the inherent behavioral differences in fish and shellfish species with respect to the size of their home r ange as well as to whether, at some time or times in their life cycle, they migrate widely to other**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-24 more or less contaminated areas. Consider the bluegill sunfish, a common inhabitant of small lakes and creeks. The home range for this species is typically less than 0.25 acres (~1,000 m 2 ) in lakes and does not exceed 28 m in streams (Carlander, 1969; Hardy, 1978). Smallmouth bass, a riverine species, have a home range of 500 to 4,500 m 2 , but typically migrate up to 45 km (28 miles) (Reid and Rabeni, 1989; Todd and Rabeni, 1 989). In contrast, many Great Lake fish species, as well as riverine, estuarine, and marine species migrate considerable distances during spawning periods. Several Great Lakes species also move upstream considerable distances into tributary rivers to spawn. Lake trout in the Great Lakes have been found to migrate up to 300 km (186 miles) with larger fish migrating 300 miles (483 km) (Daly et al., 1962; Mills, 1971; Willers, 1991). For many marine species, estuaries are the spawning areas for the adults and nursery areas for the developing juveniles, who eventually travel offshore as adults and return again to the estuaries to spawn. For these species, migratory or seasonal movements both from inshore to offshore areas and north and south migrations along the coasts can take place. Obviously, the number of samples needed to define an area under advisory for bl uegill sunfish inhabiting a relatively homogeneous environment with respect to contaminant concentrations is quite different from that required for the more mobile species like the smallmouth bass and lake trout.
For shellfish, similar considerations are necessary. Bivalve molluscs like the oyster or mussel cement themselves to hard substrate as young spat and are unable to move away from pollution effects once they have settled out of the water column. Although clams and scallop species are slightly more mobile, they also typically stay in the general area in which they first settled out of the water column. For crustaceans like the blue crab and lobsters, however, movements both into and out of estuaries as well as into deeper water offshore are possible. As the complexity of the hydrodynamics of an ecosystem increases and the mobility of the target species increases, so too does the number of samples and the number of sampling stations required to delineate the area where contaminated individuals may be encountered by the fishing public.
**6.1.2.2 Target Species and Size Class Selection**

& Whenever possible, the target species found in the screening study to have elevated tissue concentrations of one or more of the target analytes should be resampled in the intensive study. Recommended target species for freshwater sites are listed in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-4; target species for estuarine/marine waters are listed in Tables 3-10 through 3-12 for Atlantic Coast estuaries, in Table 3-13 for Gulf Coast estuaries, and in Tables 3-14 through 3-16 for Pacific Coast estuaries. If the target species used in the screening study are not collected in sufficient numbers, alternative target species should be selected using criteria provided in Section 3.2. The alternative target species should be specified on the sample request form.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-25 For Phase I intensive studies, states should collect replicate composite samples of one size class for each target species and focus sampling on larger individuals commonly harvested by the local population (as appropriate). If contamination of this target size class is high, Phase II studies should include collection of replicate composite samples of three size classes within each target species.
EPA recognizes that resource limitations may influence the sampling strategy selected by a state. If monitoring resources are limited for intensive studies, states may determine that it is more resource-efficient to collect replicate composite samples of three size classes (as recommended for Phase II studies) during Phase I sampling rather than revisit the site at a later time to conduct Phase II intensive studies. In this way, the state may save resources by reducing field sampling costs associated with Phase II intensive studies.
By sampling three size (age) classes, states collect data on the target species that may provide them with additional risk management options. If contaminant concentrations are positively correlated with fish and shellfish size, frequent consumption of smaller (less contaminated) individuals may be acceptable even though consumption of larger individuals may be restricted by a consumption advisory. In this way, states can tailor an advisory to protect human health and still allow restricted use of the fishery resource. Many Great Lakes states have used size (age) class data to allow smaller individuals within a given target species to remain fishable while larger individuals are placed under an advisory.
**6.1.2.3 Target Analyte Selection**

& Ideally, Phase I intensive studies should include only those target analytes found in the screening study to be present in fish and shellfish tissue at concentrations exceeding selected SVs (Section 5.2). Phase II studies should include only those target analytes found in Phase I intensive studies to be present at concentrations exceeding SVs. In most cases, the number of target analytes evaluated in Phase I and II intensive studies will be significantly smaller than the number evaluated in screening studies.
**6.1.2.4 Target Analyte Screening Values**

& Target analyte SVs used in screening studies should also be used in Phase I and II intensive studies. Specific methods used to calculate SVs for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic target analytes, including examples of SVs calculated for various exposure scenarios, are given in Section 5.1.
**6.1.2.5 Sampling Times**

& To the extent that program resources allow, sampling in intensive studies should be conducted during the same period or periods during which screening studies were conducted (i.e., when the target species are most frequently harvested for consumption) and should be conducted preferably within 1 year of the screening**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-26 studies. In some cases, it may be best to combine Phase I and Phase II sampling to decrease both the time required to obtain adequate data for issuance of specific advice relative to species, size classes, and geographic extent and/or the monitoring costs entailed in revisiting the site (see Section 6.1.2.2).
States should follow the general guidance provided in Section 6.1.1.5 for recommended sampling times. The actual sampling period and rationale for its selection should be documented fully for Phase I and II studies.
**6.1.2.6 Sample Type**

&Composite samples of fish fillets or the edible portions of shellfish are recommended for analysis of target analytes in intensive studies. The general guidance in Section 6.1.1.6 should be followed to prepare composite samples for each target species. In addition, separate composite samples may be prepared for selected size (age) classes within each target species, particularly in Phase II studies after tissue contamination has been verified in Phase I studies. Because the number of replicate composite samples and the number of fish and shellfish per composite required to test whether the site-specific mean contaminant concentration exceeds the selected SV are intimately related, both will be discussed in the next section.

**Note:** The same number of individual organisms should be used to prepare all replicate composite samples for a given target species at a given site. If this number is outside the recommended range, documentation should be provided.
Recommended sample preparation procedures are discussed in Section 7.2.
States interested in analyzing target analyte residues in individual fish or shellfish samples should review information presented in Appendix C.
**6.1.2.7 Replicate Samples**

& In intensive studies (Phases I and II), EPA recommends that states analyze replicate composite samples of each target species at each sampling site.
Replicate composite samples should be as similar to each other as possible. In addition to being members of the same species, individuals within each composite should be of similar length (size) (see Section 6.1.1.6). The relative difference between the average length (size) of individuals within any composite sample from a given site and the average of the average lengths (sizes) of individuals in all composite samples from that site should not exceed 10 percent (U.S. EPA, 1990d). To determine this, states should first calculate the average length of the target species fish constituting each composite replicate sample from a site. Then, states should take the average of these averages for the site. In the following example, the average of the average lengths of individuals (±10 percent) in five replicate composite samples is calculated to be 310 (±31) mm.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-27 **Replicate Average Length of Individual**  **Fish in Composite Sample (mm)**
1 2 3 4 5 300 320 330 280 320 Average of the average length (±10%) = 310 (±31) mm.

Therefore, the acceptable range for the average length of individual composite samples is 279 to 341 mm, and the average length of individual fish in each of the five replicate composites shown above falls within the acceptable average size range. All replicate composite samples for a given sampling site should be collected within no more than 1 week of each other so that temporal changes in target analyte concentrations associated with the reproductive cycle of the target species are minimized.
**6.1.2.7.1 Guidelines for Determining Sample Sizes**

& This section provides general guidelines for estimating the number of replicate composite samples per site (n) and the number of individuals per composite (m) required to test the null hypothesis that the mean target analyte concentration of replicate composite samples at a site is equal to the SV versus the alternative hypothesis that the mean target analyte concentration is greater than the SV. These guidelines are applicable to any target species and any target analyte.

**Note:** It is not possible to recommend a single set of sample size requirements (e.g., number of replicate composite samples per site and the number of individuals per composite sample) for all fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring studies. Rather, EPA presents a more general approach to sample size determination that is both scientifically defensible and cost-effective. At each site, states must determine the appropriate number of replicate composite samples and of individuals per composite sample based on

& Site-specific estimations of the population variance of the target analyte concentration

& Fisheries management considerations

& Statistical power consideration.
If the population variance of the target analyte concentrations at a site is small, fewer replicate composite samples and/or fewer individuals per composite sample may be required to test the null hypothesis of interest with the desired statistical**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-28 power. In this case, using sample sizes that are larger than required to achieve the desired statistical power would not be cost-effective.
Alternatively, suppose EPA recommended sample sizes based on an analyte concentration with a population variance that is smaller than that of the target analyte. In this case, the EPA-recommended sample size requirements may be inadequate to test the null hypothesis of interest at the statistical power level selected by the state. Therefore, EPA recommends an approach that providesthe flexibility to sample less in those waters where the target analyte concentrations are less variable, thereby reserving sampling resources for those sitespecific situations where the population variance of the target analyte tissue concentration is greater.
EPA recommends the following statistical model, which assumes that z i is the contaminant concentration of the ith replicate composite sample at the site of interest where i=1,2,3,...,n and, furthermore, that each replicate composite sample is comprised of m individual fish fillets of equal mass. Let  ̄ z be the mean target analyte concentration of observed replicate composite samples at a site. Ignoring measurement error, the variance of  ̄ z is
Var(  ̄ z) = ) 2 /(nm) (6-1)

where

) 2 = Population variance

n = Number of replicate composite samples m = Number of individual samples in each composite sample.
To test the null hypothesis that the mean target analyte concentration across the n replicate composite samples is equal to the SV versus the alternative hypothesis that the mean target analyte concentration is greater than the SV, the estimate of the Var(  ̄ z), s 2 , is

s 2 = [ ( (z i   ̄ z) 2 ] / [n(n

 1)] (6-2)
where the summation occurs over the n composite samples. Under the null hypothesis, the following statistic
(  ̄ z

 SV) / s (6-3)
has a Student-t distribution with (n

 1) degrees of freedom (Cochran, 1977; Kish, 1965). The degrees of freedom are one less than the number of composite samples.

**Note:** Use of a single composite sample precludes estimating the variability of the mean target analyte concentration. The estimator s 2 can only be calculated with at least two (but preferably three or more) replicate composite samples.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-29 An optimal sampling design would specify the minimum number of replicate composite samples (n) and of individuals per composite (m) required to detect a minimum difference between the selected SV and the m ean target analyte concentration of replicate composite samples at a site. Design characteristics necessary to estimate the optimal sampling design include

 Minimum detectable difference between the site-specific mean target analyte concentration and the selected SV

 Power of the hypothesis test (i.e., the probability of detecting a true difference when one exists)

 Level of significance (i.e., the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis of no difference between the site-specific m ean target analyte concentration and the SV when a difference does not exist)

 Population variance, ) 2 (i.e., the variance in target analyte concentrations among indivi duals from the same species, which the statistician often must estimate from prior information)

 Cost components (including fixed costs and variable sample collection, preparation, and analysis costs).
In the absence of such design specifications, guidance for selecting the number of replicate composite samples at each site and the number of fish per composite sample is provided. This guidance is based on an investigation of the precision of the estimate of ) 2 /nm and of statistical power.

**Note:** Under optimal field and laboratory conditions, at least two replicate composite samples are required at each site for variance estimation. To minimizethe risk of a destroyed or contaminated composite sample precluding the sitespecific statistical analysis, a **minimum** of three replicate composite samples should be collected at each site if possible. Because three replicate composite samples provide only two degrees of freedom for hypothesis testing, additional replicate composite samples are recommended.
The stability of the estimated standard error of  ̄ z must also be considered because this estimated standard error is the denominator of the statistic for testing the null hypothesis of interest. A measure of the stability of an estimate is its statistical precision. The assumption is made that the z i 's come from a normal distribution, and then the standard error of is defined as a product of and a function  σ 2 /nm  σ 2 of n (the number of replicate composite samples) and m (the number of fish per composite). A fortunate aspect of composite sampling is that the composite target analyte concentrations tend to be normally distributed via the Central Limit Theorem. This formulation is used to determine which combinations of n and m are associated with a more precise estimate of ) 2 /nm.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-30 **Table 6-1. Values of for Various Combinations of n and m**  2 n m (n 1).

2 2 1/ 2

−      

**No. of replicate**

**composite samples (n)**  **Number of fish per composite sample (m)**
**3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15**

3 4 5 6 7 10 15 0.111 0.068 0.047 0.035 0.027 0.016 0.008 0.083 0.051 0.035 0.026 0.021 0.012 0.006 0.067 0.041 0.028 0.021 0.016 0.009 0.005 0.056 0.034 0.024 0.018 0.014 0.008 0.004 0.048 0.029 0.020 0.015 0.012 0.007 0.004 0.042 0.026 0.018 0.013 0.010 0.006 0.003 0.037 0.023 0.016 0.012 0.009 0.005 0.003 0.033 0.020 0.014 0.011 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.028 0.017 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.022 0.014 0.009 0.007 0.005 0.003 0.002 Modifying Cochran (1963) to reflect the normality assumption and the sampling design of n replicate composite samples and m fish per composite sample, the function of n and m of interest is shown in square brackets:
(6-4) 

### se nm 2 n m (n 1) 2 2 2 1/2 

###  σ σ       =

−      

Table 6-1 provides values of this function for various combinations of m and n. The data presented in Table 6-1 suggest that, as either n or m increases, the standard error of decreases. The advantage of increasing the number of  σ 2 /nm replicate composite samples can be described in terms of this standard error. For example, the standard error of from a sample design of five replicate  σ 2 /nm composite samples and six fish per composite (0.024) will be more than 50 percent smaller than that from a sample design of three replicate composite samples and six fish per composite (0.056). In general, holding the number of fish per composite fixed, the standard error of estimated from five replicate  σ 2 /nm samples will be about 50 percent smaller than that estimated from three replicate samples.

The data in Table 6-1 also suggest that greater precision in the estimated standard error of  ̄ z is gained by increasing the number of replicate samples (n) than by increasing the number of fish per composite (m). If the total number of individual fish caught at a site, for example, is fixed at 50 fish, then, with a design of 10 replicate samples of 5 fish each, the value of the function of n and m in Table 6-1 is 0.009; with 5 replicate samples of 10 fish each, the value is 0.014. Thus, there is greater precision in the estimated standard error of  ̄ z associated with the first design as compared with the second design.
Two assumptions are made to examine the statistical power of the test of the null hypothesis of interest. First, it is assumed that the true mean of the site-specific composite target analyte concentrations (μ) is either 10 percent, 25 percent, or 50 percent higher than the screening value. Second, it is presumed that a factor similar to a coefficient of variation, the ratio of the estimated population standard deviation to the screening value (i.e., ) /SV), is 50, 75 or 100 percent. Nine**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-31 scenarios result from joint consideration of these two assumptions. The power of the test of the null hypothesis that the mean composite target analyte concentration at a site is equal to the SV versus the alternative hypothesis that the mean target analyte concentration is greater than the SV is estimated under each set of assumptions. Estimates of the statistical power for six of the nine scenarios are shown in Table 6-2.
Power estimates for the three scenarios where the true mean of the site-specific composite target analyte concentration was assumed to be only 10 percent higher than the screening value are not presented. The power to detect this small difference was very poor: for 242 of the resulting 270 combinations of n and m, the power was less than 50 percent.
Several observations can be made concerning the data in Table 6-2. **Note:** The statistical power increases as either n (number of replicate composite samples) or m (number of fish per composite) increases. However, greater power is achieved by increasing the number of replicate composite samples as opposed to increasing the number of fish per composite. Furthermore, if the number of replicate composite samples per site and the number of fish per composite are held constant, then, as the ratio of the estimated population standard deviation to the SV increases (i.e., ) /SV), the statistical power decreases. Higher variability in the true population of target analyte concentration in fish will require more samples to detect a difference between the mean target analyte concentration and the SV.
States may use these tables as a starting point for setting the number of replicate composite samples per site and the number of fish per composite in their fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring studies. The assumption regarding the ratio of the estimated population standard deviation to the SV presented in Sections A and D of Table 6-2 is unrealistic for some fish and shellfish populations. Data in Sections C through F, which reflect more realistic assumptions concerning the estimated population standard deviation, show that states will be able to detectonly large differences between the site-specific mean target analyte concentrations and the selected SV. Specifically, if the assumed ratio of the estimated population standard deviation to the SV is 1.0, using five replicate composite samples and six to seven fish per composite sample, the power to detect a 50 percent increase over the SV is between 70 and 80 percent. However, when the number of fish per composite increases to 8 to 10, the power increases by about 10 percentage points. In comparison, the power to detect a 25 percent increase over the SV is less than 50 percent.
Table 6-2 shows that a statistical power level of (at least) 70 percent is attainable for moderate values of m and n, as long as the ratio ) /SV is not large and/or the desired detectable difference between the target analyte concentration and the SV is not too small.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-32 **Table 6-2. Estimates of Statistical Power of Hypothesis of Interest Under Specified Assumptions**  **No. of Replicate Composite**  **Samples (n) Number of Fish Per Composite (m)** 
**3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15**
A. Ratio of ) /SV = 0.5 and μ = 1.5 x SV:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 5 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
B. Ratio of ) /SV = 0.75 and μ = 1.5 x SV:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 %

% 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 % 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 % 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 % 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
C. Ratio of ) /SV = 1.0 and μ = 1.5 x SV:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 %

%

% 5 6 7 7 8 9 %

% 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 %

% 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 % 5 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 % 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 % 6 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 % 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 % 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
D. Ratio of ) /SV = 0.5 and μ = 1.25 x SV:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 %

%

% 5 6 7 7 8 9 %

% 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 %

% 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 % 5 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 % 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 % 6 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 % 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 % 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
E. Ratio of ) /SV =0.75 and μ = 1.25 x SV:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% 6 %

%

%

%

%

% 5 6 7 %

%

%

% 5 5 6 6 8 %

%

%

% 5 6 7 7 9 %

%

% 5 6 7 7 8 9 %

%

% 6 6 7 8 8 9 %

% 5 6 7 8 8 8 9 %

% 5 7 7 8 8 9 9 %

% 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 % 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**
**Table 6-2. (continued)**

**No. of Replicate Composite**  **Samples (n) Number of Fish Per Composite (m)** 
**3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15**

6-33 F. Ratio of ) /SV = 1.0 and μ = 1.25 x SV:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 %

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% 5 %

%

%

%

%

%

%

% 6 %

%

%

%

%

%

% 5 5 %

%

%

%

%

% 5 5 7 %

%

%

%

% 5 5 6 8 %

%

%

% 5 5 6 6 8 %

%

%

% 5 6 6 7 8 %

%

% 5 6 7 7 8 9 %

% 5 6 7 7 8 8 9

% : Power less than 50 percent. 5: Power between 50 and 60 percent. 6: Power between 60 and 70 percent. 7: Power between 70 and 80 percent. 8: Power between 80 and 90 percent 9: Power greater than 90 percent One final note on determining the number of replicate composite samples per site and the number of fish per composite should be emphasized. According to Section 6.1.2.3, Phase I intensive studies will focus on those target analytes that exceeded the selected SV used in the screening study. Thus, multiple target analytes may be under investigation during Phase I intensive studies, and the population variances of these analytes are likely to differ. **Note:** States should use the target analyte that exhibits the largest population variance when selecting the number of replicate composite samples per site and the number of fish per composite. This conservative approach supports use of the data in Section B of Table 6-2 where the ratio of ) /SV is twice that of the data in Section A. States may estimate population variances from historic fish contaminant data or from composite data as described by U.S. EPA (1989d). This estimate of ) 2 can be used to determine whether the sampling design (i.e., number of replicate composite samples [n] and number of individuals per composite [m]) should be modified to achieve a desired statistical power.
Table 6-3 summarizes some observed ratios ( ) /SV) of selected target analytes. These values were estimated from composite samples of siscowet trout and lake trout collected and analyzed by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission in a study funded by the Administration for Native Americans.
**Table 6-3. Observed Ratios (** ) **/SV) of Selected Target Analytes**

**Target Species Total PCB**  **SV=0.02 ppm Observed**  ) **/SV (Mean) Toxaphene**  **SV=0.0363 ppm Heptachlor Epoxide**  **SV=0.00439 ppm** Siscowet trout 4.08 (1.01) 7.07 (2.18) 0.68 (0.01) Lake trout 10.70 (0.47) 3.01 (0.38) 0.93 (0.007) Source: Personal communication, Kory Groetsch, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Odana, WI, with Elvessa Aragon, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 10, 2000. SV = EPA default value for recreational fishers.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-34 Consider a study of heptachlor epoxide concentrations in lake trout. The observed ratio ( ) /SV) is close to 1.0 and the observed mean is approximately 1.5 x SV. To determine the appropriate values of n and m, we look at Section C of Table 6-2. To achieve statistical power between 80 and 90 percent, the combination of n and m that requires the smallest number of individual fish is n=10 and m=3. Ten replicate composite samples, each with three fish, will provide between 80 and 90 percent power for detecting a mean heptachlor epoxide concentration that is higher than the SV, if the difference truly exists. Other combinations of n and m might be more desirable. For instance, if the cost of analyzing composite samples is much higher than the cost of compositing individual fish, a combination that yields fewer replicate composite samples (say, n=5 and m=8, or n=6 and m=6) may be chosen. For siscowet trout, the observed ratio ( ) /SV) is close to 0.75 while the observed mean is approximately 2.25 x SV. A comparison of the combinations of n and m in Sections B and E (for
)

/SV = 0.75) shows that higher values of n and m are required to detect a difference at the same level of statistical power. For instance, in Section B, where μ = 1.5 x SV, the smallest number of individual fish needed to achieve 80 to 90 percent power is given by n=7 and m=3. In Section E, where μ=1.25 x SV, the combination of n=15 and m=5 achieves 80 to 90 percent power. For the same level of power and the same ) /SV, detecting a larger difference between the SV and the true mean concentration requires larger sample sizes (n or m or both).
After states have implemented their fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring program, collected data on cost and variance components, and addressed other design considerations, they may want to consider using an optimal composite sampling protocol as described in Rohlf et al. (1991) for refining their sampling design. An optimal sampling design is desirable because it detects a specified minimum difference between the site-specific mean contaminant concentration and the SV at minimum cost.
**6.1.2.7.2 Comparison of Target Analyte Concentrations with Screening Values for Issuing Fish Advisories** 

& Using the statistical model described in Section 6.1.2.7.1, target analyte concentrations from replicate composite samples at a particular site can be compared to screening values using a t-test. Assume that z i is the contaminant concentration of the ith replicate composite sample at the site of interest where i=1,2,3,...,n and, furthermore, that each replicate composite sample comprises m individual fish fillets of equal mass. To test the null hypothesis that the mean target analyte concentration across the n replicate composite samples is equal to the SV versus the alternative hypothesis that the mean target analyte concentration is greater than the SV, perform the following steps:

1. Calculate  ̄ z, the mean target analyte concentration of observed replicate composite samples at a site:

 ̄ z = ( z i / n
where the summation occurs over the n composite samples.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-35 2. Calculate the estimate of the Var(  ̄ z), s 2 :

s 2 = [ ( (z i   ̄ z) 2 ] / [n(n

 1)]
where the summation occurs over the n composite samples.

3. Calculate the test statistic:

t c = (  ̄ z

 SV) / s
4. The null hypothesis of no difference is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of exceedance if t c > t  ,n-1
where t  ,n-1 is the tabulated value of the Student-t distribution corresponding to level of significance  and n-1 degrees of freedom. Note that the inequality is in one direction (>) since it is **exceedance** of the SV that is of interest.
When several sites are sampled and/or fish of different size ranges are collected, it is important to conduct the test separately at each site and for each size range. Combining sites or size ranges introduces variance components that are not accounted for in this procedure. The variance estimate may be larger with the additional sources of variability, and more replicate samples may be needed to detect a significant overall exceedance of the SV.
**Example**
Samples of siscowet trout were collected by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and composited according to the guidelines discussed in this document. Composites of 12 fish were prepared, and four replicate samples of each of four size classes were analyzed for total mercury, PCBs, and a suite of chlorinated pesticides. Following is a summary of the test for exceedance of the SV for hexachlorobenzene (SV=0.025 ppm) based on the recreati onal fish consumption default value.
At the 5 percent level of significance the critical value of the Student-t distribution with three degrees of freedom is 2.353. All of the test statistic values are less than the critical value. The mean levels of hexachlorobenzene in the four size ranges of siscowet trout are less than the SV, so no fish advisory is needed.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-36 **Size Range (in.)**  **No. of Replicate**  **Samples (n)**  **No. of Fish per**  **Composite (m)**  **Composite Measurements**  **of HCB (ppm)**  **Mean (Estimated**  **Standard Deviation)**  **Test Statistic** 
17.0-18.0 4 12 0.00419 0.00507 0.00483 0.00405 4.53x10 -3 (2.46x10 -4 ) -83.21

19.5-20.5 4 12 0.00604 0.00780 0.00925 0.00990 8.25x10 -3 (8.57x10 -4 ) -19.54

22.0-23.0 4 12 0.01800 0.01808 0.01868 0.02389 1.97x10 -2 ) (1.42x10 -3 ) -3.73

24.5-25.5 4 12 0.01050 0.00960 0.00850 0.01090 9.88x10 -3 (5.33x10 -4 ) -28.37

HCB=Hexachlorobenzene. **6.1.2.7.3 Comparison of Target Analyte Concentrations with Screening Values for Rescinding Fish Advisories** 

& The comparison of m ean target analyte concentrations to the screening values must be statistically based when considering rescinding a fish advisory. Statistical tests are constructed to control the Type I and Type II errors. The Type I error is defi ned as rejecting the null hypothesis (based on the evidence from the data) even though it is really true. The Type II error is defined as failing to reject the null hypothesis even though it is really false. In the context of the null and alternative hypotheses presented in the previous section, the Type I error is concluding that the mean target analyte concentration exceeds the SV when in fact it does not. The state concludes that there is a need to issue a fish advisory and proceeds to issue one, albeit unnecessarily. The Type II error is concluding that the mean target analyte concentration tissue residue level does not exceed the SV when in fact it does. The state decides that the mean target analyte concentration is no longer endangering the public health, so the fish advisory is rescinded. The implications of such errors may be costly; a Type II error in this case will put the public at risk without their knowledge. The Type I error is controlled by setting the level of significance to a small value, and the Type II error is controlled by increasing the power of the test. Both error types can be controlled simultaneously by increasing the sample sizes (n or m or both).
There are two basic statistical questions that must be answered before a fish advisory is rescinded:

 Is the screening value still being exceeded?

 If the screening value is no longer being exceeded, can the target analyte concentrations be expected to remain below the screening value?**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-37 The first question may be answered with the t-test described in the previous section. The second question may be answered by monitoring the target analyte concentrations long enough to observe a downward trend or a constant trend below the screening value. The simple approach would be to obtain replicate composite samples each year and test for exceedance of the screening value. (Section 6.1.1.5 recommends that screening be done biennially or at least once every 5 years. "Year" then signifies the years when screening is performed.) If the screening value is no longer being exceeded in year X, the state should continue obtaining replicate samples for at least one more year. The state should then test the differences between the tissue residue levels at years X-1, X, and X+1. Significant differences between the levels, especially between years X-1 and X, as well as between years X-1 and X+1, allows verification that the decrease in the target analyte concentration below the screening value at year X was not by chance. Appendix N discusses some statistical methods for comparing samples at different time points.
It is recommended that the yearly studies be as similar in study design as possible. Introducing changes in the study design will add more sources of variability and may necessitate increasing the number of replicate samples or accounting for the additional variance components in the statistical methods used.
**6.1.2.7.4 Issuing Statewide Advisories**

& In addition to issuing fish consumption advisories for individual waterbodies, 18 states have also issued blanket statewide advisories for certain types of waterbodies within their jurisdictions (U.S. EPA, 1999c). States have issued statewide advisories for their freshwater lakes and/or rivers and their coastal waters, which can include estuaries and/or coastal marine waters. States often issue statewide advisories for certain waterbody types to warn the public of the potential for widespread contamination of certain species of fish or shellfish in these waterbodies. In these cases, the state has typically found a level of contamination of a specific pollutant in a particular fish species over a relatively wide geographic area that warrants advising the public of the situation. A state often issues a statewide advisory when, for example, it has many lakes that need to be monitored but has limited resources to collect fish (can sample only four or five lakes per year). If the state has even 100 lakes that need monitoring at the level of resources available, it could take 10 to 20 years to adequately monitor all 100 lakes. As an alternative, some states monitor a small percentage of their lakes and, based on the level of contamination found, many have determined that a statewide advisory should be issued to be conservative with respect to protection of public health. Methylmercury, because it is dispersed and transported via the atmosphere, is the leading pollutant responsible for the issuance of statewide advisories in 15 states, although PCBs, dioxins/furans, cadmium, chlordane, mirex, and DDT are also responsible for statewide advisories in a smaller number of states. Assuming that the levels of contamination are determined based on the fish compositing guidelines in this document, the biggest question is determining which waterbodies to monitor. Finding a "representative" sample of waterbodies is a daunting task since there are many different ways to determine representativeness: size of waterbody,**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-38 species of interest, dynamics of dispersion of pollutants of interest, or geographical location. Taking a simple random sample of lakes may not achieve sufficient coverage, whereas taking a stratified random sample approach may require more lakes be sampled than can be afforded. A conservative approach may be to look at the "worst case scenario". States may decide to sample the lakes that are believed to have the highest levels of pollutants, based on historical contaminant data, current water and sediment sampling results, or other variables. Another approach would be to select one or two of the factors described above ("representativeness"), stratify the lakes according to these factors, and select a random sample within each stratum. The set of factors for stratification may change every few years or so if it is deemed that some other factors are becoming more indicative of the levels of contamination.

**6.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION**
Sample collection activities should be initiated in the field only after an approved sampling plan has been developed. This section discusses recommended sampling equipment and its use, considerations for ensuring preservation of sample integrity, and field recordkeeping and chain-of-custody procedures associated with sample processing, preservation, and shipping.
**6.2.1 Sampling Equipment and Use**
In response to the variations in environmental conditions and target species of interest, fisheries biologists have had to devise sampling methods that are intrinsically selective for certain species and sizes of fish and shellfish (Versar, 1982). Although this selectivity can be a hindrance in an investigation of community structure, it is not a problem where tissue contaminant analysis is of concern because tissue contaminant data can best be compared only if factors such as differences in taxa and size are minimized.
Collection methods can be divided into two major categories, active and passive. Each collection method has advantages and disadvantages. Various types of sampling equipment, their use, and their advantages and disadvantages are summarized in Table 6-4 for fish and in Table 6-5 for shellfish. **Note:** Either active or passive collection methods may be used as long as the methods selected result in collection of a representative fish sample of the type consumed by local sport and subsistence fishers.
A basic checklist of field sampling equipment and supplies is shown in Table 6-6. Safety considerations associated with the use of a boat in sample collection activities are summarized in Table 6-7.

**6.2.1.1 Active Collection**

& Active collection methods employ a wide variety of sampling techniques and devices. Devices for fish sampling include electroshocking units, seines, trawls,**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-39**Table 6-4. Summary of Fish Sampling Equipment Device** **Use Advantages** **Disadvantages ACTIVE METHODS** ElectrofishingShallow rivers, lakes, and streams.Most efficiency nonselection method. Minimaldamage to fish. Adaptable to a number ofsampling conditions (e.g., boat, wading,shorelines). Particularly useful at sites where otheractive methods cannot be used (e.g., around snagsand irregular bottom contours).Nonselective%stuns or kills most fish. Cannot beused in brackish, salt, or extremely soft water.Requires extensive operator training.DANGEROUS when not used properly.SeinesShallow rivers, lakes, and streams. Shorelineareas of estuaries.Relatively inexpensive and easily operated. Meshsize selection available for target species.Cannot be used in deep water or over substrateswith an irregular contour. Not completely efficientas fish can evade the net during seining operation.TrawlsVarious sizes can be used from boats in moderateto deep open bodies of water (10 to >70 m depths).Effective in deep waters not accessible by othermethods. Allows collection of a large number ofsamples.Requires boat and trained operators.AnglingGenerally species selective involving use of hookand line.Most selective method. Does not require use oflarge number of personnel or expensiveequipment.Inefficient and not dependable.Purchasing specimensfrom commercial fishersOnly in areas where target species arecommercially harvested.Most cost-effective and efficient means of obtainingcommercially valuable species from harvestedwaters.Limited use; commercially harvested areas may notinclude sampling sites chosen for fish contaminantmonitoring. The field collection staff shouldaccompany the commercial fishers and shouldremove the required samples from the collectiondevice. This will ensure the proper handling of thespecimens and accurate recording of the collectiontime and sampling location.**PASSIVE METHODS**Gill netsLakes, rivers, and estuaries. Where fishmovement can be expected or anticipated.Effective for collecting pelagic fish species.Relatively easy to operate. Requires less fishingeffort than active methods. Selectivity can becontrolled by varying mesh size.Not effective for bottom-dwelling fish or populationsthat do not exhibit movement patterns. Nets proneto tangling or damage by large and sharp spinedfish. Gill nets will kill captured specimens, which,when left for extended periods, may undergophysiological changes.Trammel netsLakes, rivers, and estuaries. Where fishmovement can be expected or anticipated.Frequently used where fish may be scared into thenet.Slightly more efficient than a straight gill net. (Same as for gill nets.) Tangling problems may bemore severe. Method of scaring fish into netrequires more personnel or possibly boats in deepwater areas.Hoop, Fyke and PoundNetsShallow rivers, lakes, and estuaries when currentsare present or when movements of fish arepredictable. Frequently used in commercialoperations.Unattended operation. Very efficient in regard tolong-term return and expended effort. Particularlyuseful in areas where active methods areimpractical.Inefficient for short term. Difficult to set up andmaintain.D-TrapsUsed for long-term capture of slow-moving fish,particularly bottom species. Can be used in allenvironments.Easy to operate and set. Unattended operation.Particularly useful for capturing bottom-dwellingorganisms in deep waters or other types ofinaccessible areas. Relatively inexpensive%oftencan be hand made.Efficiency is highly variable. Not effective forpelagic fish or fish that are visually oriented. Lessefficient for all species when water is clear ratherthan turbid. Not a good choice for a primarysampling technique, but available as backup forother methods.Source: Versar, 1982.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-40**Table 6-5. Summary of Shellfish Sampling Equipment Device** **Use Advantages** **Disadvantages ACTIVE METHODS** SeinesShallow shoreline areas of estuaries.Relatively inexpensive and easily operated. Meshsize selection available for target crustaceanspecies (e.g., shrimp and crabs).Cannot be used in deep water or over substrateswith an irregular contour. Not completely efficientas crustaceans can evade the net during seiningoperation.TrawlsVarious sizes can be used from boats in moderateto deep open bodies of water (10 to >70 m depths).Effective in deeper waters not accessible by othermethods. Allows collection of a large number ofsamples.Requires boat and trained operators.Mechanical grabsDouble-pole-operatedgrab bucketsUsed from boat or pier. Most useful in shallowwater areas less than 6 m deep including lakes,rivers, and estuaries.Very efficiency means of sampling bivalves (e.g.,clams and oysters) that are located on or buried inbottom sediments.At depths greater than 6 m, the pole-operateddevices become difficult to operate manually.Tongs or doublehandled grab samplerMost useful in shallow water, lakes, rivers, andestuaries. Generally used from a boat.Very efficient means of sampling oysters, clams,and scallops. Collection of surrounding oroverlying sediments is not required and the jawsare generally open baskets. This reduces theweight of the device and allows the washing ofcollected specimens to remove sediments.At depths greater than 6 m, the pole-operateddevices become difficult to operate manually.Line or cable-operatedgrab bucketsEkman grabUsed from boat or pier to sample soft to semisoftsubstrates.Can be used in water of varying depths in lakes,rivers, and estuaries.Possible incomplete closure of jaws can result insample loss. Must be repeatedly retrieved anddeployed. Grab is small and is not particularlyeffective in collecting large bivalves (calms andoysters).Petersen grabDeep lakes, rivers, and estuaries for sampling mostsubstrates.Large sample is obtained; grab can penetrate mostsubstrates.Grab is heavy, may require which for deployment.Possible incomplete closure of jaws can result issample loss. Must be repeatedly retrieved anddeployed.Ponar grabDeep lakes, rivers, and estuaries for samplingsand, silt, or clay substrates.Most universal grab sampler. Adequate on mostsubstrates. Large sample is obtained intact.Possible incomplete closure of jaws can result insample loss. Must be repeatedly retrieved anddeployed.Orange peel grab Deep lakes, rivers, and estuaries for sampling mostsubstrates.Designed for sampling hard substrates.Grab is heavy, may require winch for deployment.Possible incomplete closure of jaws can result insample loss. Must be repeatedly retrieved anddeployed. Grab is small and not particularlyeffective in collecting large bivalves (clams andoysters).Biological or hydraulicdredgesDragged along the bottom of deep waterbodies tocollect large stationary invertebrates.Qualitative sampling of large area of bottomsubstrate and benthic community. Length of towscan be relatively short if high density of shellfishexists in sampling area.If the length of the tow is long, it is difficult topinpoint the exact location of the sample collectionarea. Because of the scouring operation of thedredge, bivalve shells may be damaged. Allbivalve specimens should be inspected andindividuals with cracked or damaged shells shouldbe discarded.(continued)**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-41**Table 6-5. (continued) Device** **Use Advantages** **Disadvantages ACTIVE METHODS (continued)** Scoops, shovelsUsed in shallow waters accessible by wading orSCUBA equipment for collection of hard clams(Mercenaria mercenaria)or soft-shell clam(Myaarenaria).Does not require a boat; sampling can be donefrom shore.Care must be taken not to damage the shells ofbivalves while digging in substrate.ScrapersUsed in shallow waters accessible by wading orSCUBA equipment for collection of oysters(Crassostrea virginica)or mussels(Mytilus sp).Does not require a boat; sampling can be donefrom shore.Care must be taken not to damage shells ofbivalves while removing them from hard substrate.RakesUsed in shallow waters accessible by wading orcan be used from a boat.Does not require a boat; sampling can be doneclose to shore. Can be used in soft sediments tocollect clams or scallops and can also be used todislodge oysters or mussels that are attached tosubmerged objects such as rocks and pier pilings.Care must be taken not to damage the shells of thebivalves while raking or dislodging them from thesubstrate.Purchasing specimensfrom commercial fishersOnly in areas where target species arecommercially harvested.Most cost-effective and efficient means of obtainingbivalves for pollutant analysis from commerciallyharvested waters.Limited use; commercially harvested areas may notinclude sampling sites chosen for shellfishcontaminant monitoring. The field collection staffshould accompany the commercial fishers andshould remove the required samples from thecollection device. This will ensure the properhandling of the specimens and accurate recordingof the exact collection time and sampling location.**PASSIVE METHODS**D-trapsUsed for capture of slow-moving crustaceans(crabs and lobsters) that move about on or justabove the substrate.Can be used in a variety of environments.Particularly useful for capturing bottom-dwellingorganisms in deep water or other inaccessibleareas. Relatively inexpensive, can be hand made.Catch efficiency is highly variable. Not a goodchoice for a primary sampling technique, butvaluable as a backup for other methods.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-42 **Table 6-6. Checklist of Field Sampling Equipment and Supplies for Fish and Shellfish Contaminant Monitoring Programs** 

* Boat supplies

* Fuel supply (primary and auxiliary supply) * Spare parts repair kit * Life preservers * First aid kit (including emergency phone numbers of local hospitals, family contacts for each member of the sampling team) * Spare oars * Nautical charts of sampling site locations

* Collection equipment (e.g., nets, traps, electroshocking device)

* Recordkeeping/documentation supplies

* Field logbook * Sample request forms * Specimen identification labels * Chain-of-Custody (COC) Forms and COC tags or labels * Indelible pens

* Sample processing equipment and supplies

* Holding trays * Fish measuring board (metric units) * Calipers (metric units) * Shucking knife * Balance to weigh representative specimens for estimating tissue weight (metric units) * Aluminum foil (extra heavy duty) * Freezer tape * String * Several sizes of plastic bags for holding individual or composite samples * Resealable watertight plastic bags for storage of Field Records, COC Forms, and Sample Request Forms

* Sample preservation and shipping supplies

* Ice (wet ice, blue ice packets, or dry ice) * Ice chests * Filament-reinforced tape to seal ice chests for transport to the central processing laboratory**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-43 **Table 6-7. Safety Considerations for Field Sampling Using a Boat**

 Field collection personnel **should not** be assigned to duty alone in boats.

 Life preservers should be worn at all times by field collection personnel near the water or on board boats.

 If electrofishing is the sampling method used, there must be two shutoff switches--one at the generator and a second on the bow of the boat.

 All deep water sampling should be performed with the aid of an experienced, licensed boat captain.

 All sampling during nondaylight hours, during severe weather conditions, or during periods of high water should be avoided or minimized to ensure the safety of field collection personnel.

 All field collection personnel should be trained in CPR, water safety, boating safety, and first aid procedures for proper response in the event of an accident. Personnel should have local emergency numbers readily available for each sampling trip and know the location of the hospitals or other medical facilities nearest each sampling site.

and angling equipment (hook and line). Rotenone, a chemical piscicide, has been used extensively to stun fish prior to their collection with seines, trawls, or other sampling devices. Rotenone has not been found to interfere with the analysis of the recommended organic target analytes (see Table 4-1) when the recommended analysis procedures are used. See Section 8 for additi onal information on appropriate analysis methods for the recommended organic target analytes. Devices for shellfish sampling include seines, trawls, mechanical grabs (e.g., pole- or cable-operated grab buckets and tongs), biological and hydraulic dredges, scoops and shovels, rakes, and dip nets. Shellfish can also be collected manually by SCUBA divers. Although active collection requires greater fishing effort, it is usually more efficient than passive collection for covering a large number of sites and catching the relatively small number of individuals needed from each site for tissue analysis (Versar, 1982). Active collection methods are particularly useful in shallow waters (e.g., streams, lake shorelines, and shallow coastal areas of estuaries).
One aspect of sample collection that is of paramount importance is that the sampling team must ensure the collection of live, intact fish and shellfish for use in sample analysis for human risk assessment. It is highly desirable to collect live, intact fish and shellfish that have not been mutilated by the collection gear and that do not have any skin, shell, or carapace lacerations or fin deterioration that would allow body fluids to leak out of the specimen or contaminants to passinto the specimen after collection. For example, some fish collected by electroshocking methods may have ruptured organs due to the electroshocking procedure. Fish that are found floating dead at a site should not be used forsample analysis for human risk assessments. For these reasons, EPA recommends that any specimens that show any skin, shell, or carapace lacerations or fin deterioration of any kind not used for chemical analysis.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-44 Active collection methods have distinct disadvantages for deep water sampling. They require more field personnel and more expensive equipment than passive collection methods. This disadvantage may be offset by coordinating samplingefforts with commercial fishing efforts. Purchasing fish and shellfish from commercial fishers using active collection devices is acceptable; however, field sampling staff should accompany the commercial fishers during the collection operation to ensure that samples are collected and handled properly and to verify the sampling site location. The field sampling staff then remove the target species directly from the sampling device and ensure that sample collection, processing, and preservation are conducted as prescribed in sample collection protocols, withminimal chance of contamination. This is an excellent method of obtaining specimens of commercially important target species, particularly from the Great Lakes and coastal estuarine areas (Versar, 1982). More detailed descriptions of active sampling devices and their use are provided in Battelle (1975), Bennett, et al., (1970), Gunderson and Ellis (1986), Hayes (1983), Mearns and Allen (1978), Pitt (1981), P uget Sound Estuary Program (1990b), Versar (1982), and Weber (1973).

**6.2.1.2 Passive Collection**

& Passive collection methods employ a wide array of sampling devices for fish and shellfish, including gill nets, fyke nets, trammel nets, hoop nets, pound nets, and d-traps. Passive collection methods generally require less fishing effort than active methods but are usually less desirable for shallow water sample collection because of the ability of many species to evade these entanglement and entrapment devices. These methods normally yield a much greater catch than would be required for a contaminant monitoring program and are time consuming to deploy. In deep water, however, passive collection methods are generally more efficient than active methods. Crawford and Luoma (1993) caution that passive collection devices (e.g., gill nets) should be checked frequently to ensure that captured fish do not deteriorate prior to removal from the sampling device. Versar (1982, 1984) and Hubert (1983) describe passive sampling devices and their use in more detail. It is highly desirable to collect live, intact fish that have not been mutilated by the collection gear and that do not have any skin lacerations or fin deterioration. For these reasons, EPA recommends that fish captured in passive collection devices not remain in the water for more than 24 hours after the passive collection device is first deployed and that specimens that show any skin or fin deterioration or external lacerations of any kind not used for chemical analysis.
Purchasing fish and shellfish from commercial fishers using passive collection methods is acceptable; however, field sampling staff s hould accompany the fishers during both the deployment and collection operations to ensure that samples are collected and handled properly and to verify the sampling site location. The field sampling staff can then ensure that sample collection, processing, and preservation are conducted as prescribed in sample collection protocols, with minimal chance of contamination.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-45 **6.2.2 Preservation of Sample Integrity**
The primary QA consideration in sample collection, processing, preservation, and shipping procedures is the preservation of sample integrity to ensure the accuracy of target analyte analyses. Sample integrity is preserved by prevention of loss of contaminants already present in the tissues and prevention of extraneous tissue contamination (Smith, 1985).
Loss of contaminants already present in fish or shellfish tissues can be prevented in the field by ensuring that the skin on fish specimens has not been lacerated by the sampling gear or that the carapace of crustaceans or shells of bivalves have not been cracked during sample collection resulting in loss of tissues and/or fluids that may contain contaminants. Once the samples have reached the laboratory, further care must be taken during thawing (if specimens are frozen) to ensure that all liquids from the thawed specimens are retained with the tissue sample as appropriate (see Sections 7.2.2, 7.2.3, and 7.2.4).
Sources of extraneous tissue contamination include contamination from sampling gear, grease from ship winches or cables, spilled engine fuel (gasoline or diesel), engine exhaust, dust, ice chests, and ice used for cooling. All potential sources of contamination in the field should be identified and appropriate steps taken to minimize or eliminate them. For example, during sampling, the boat should be positioned so that engine exhausts do not fall on the deck. Ice chests should be scrubbed clean with detergent and rinsed with distilled water after each use to prevent contamination. To avoid contamination from melting ice, samples should be placed in waterproof plastic bags (Stober, 1991). Sampling equipment that has obviously been contaminated by oils, grease, diesel fuel, or gasoline should not be used. All utensils or equipment that will be used directly in handling fish or shellfish (e.g., fish measuring board or calipers) should be cleaned in the laboratory prior to each sampling trip, rinsed in acetone and pesticide-grade hexane, and stored in aluminum foil until use (Versar, 1982). Between sampling sites, the field collection team should clean each measurement device by rinsing it with ambient water and rewrapping it in aluminum foil to prevent contamination.

**Note:** Ideally, all sample processing (e.g., resections) should be performed at a sample processing facility under cleanroom conditions to reduce the possibility of sample contamination (Schmitt and Finger, 1987; Stober, 1991). However, there may be some situations in which state staff find it necessary to fillet finfish or resect edible turtle or shellfish tissues in the field prior to packaging the samples for shipment to the processing laboratory. This practice should be avoided whenever possible. If states find that filleting fish or resecting other edible tissues must be performed in the field, a clean area should be set up away from sources of diesel exhaust and areas where gasoline, diesel fuel, or grease are used to help reduce the potential for surface and airborne contamination of the samples from PAHs and other contaminants. Use of a mobile laboratory or use of a portable resection table and enclosed hood would provide the best environment for sample processing in the field. General guidance for conducting sample**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-46 processing under cleanroom conditions is provided in Section 7.2.1. States should review this guidance to ensure that procedures as similar as possible to those recomme nded for cleanroom processing are followed. If sample processing is conducted in the field, a notation should be made in the field records and on the sample processing record (see Figure 7-2). Procedures for laboratory processing and resection are described in Section 7.2. Procedures for assessing sources of sample contamination through the analyses of field and processing blanks are described in Section 8.3.3.6.
**6.2.3 Field Recordkeeping**
Thorough documentation of all field sample collection and processing activities is necessary for proper interpretation of field survey results. For fish and shellfish contaminant studies, it is advisable to use preprinted waterproof data forms, indelible ink, and writing implements that can function when wet (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990b). When multicopy forms are r equired, no-carbonrequired (NCR) paper is recommended because it allows information to be forwarded on the desired schedule and retai ned for the project file at the same time.
Four separate preprinted sample tracking forms should be used for each sampling site to document field activities from the time the sample is collected through processing and preservation until the sample is delivered to the processing laboratory. These are

 Field record form

 Sample identification label  Chain-of-custody (COC) label or tag

 COC form.

**6.2.3.1 Field Record Form**

& The following information should be included on the field record for each sampling site in both **Tier 1** screening (Figures 6-3 and 6-4) and **Tier 2** intensive studies as appropriate (Figures 6-5 and 6-6):

 Project number

 Sampling date and time (give date in a Year 2000 compliant format [YYYYMMDD] and specify convention used for time, e.g., 24-h clock)

 Sampling site location (including site name and number, county/parish, latitude/longitude, waterbody name/segment number, waterbody type, and site description)

 Sampling depth (specify units of depth)

 Collection method

 Collectors' names and signatures

 Agency (including telephone number and address)**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-47 **Figure 6-3. Example of a field record for fish contaminant monitoring program—screening study.** **6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-48 **Figure 6-4. Example of a field record for shellfish contaminant monitoring program**  **— screening study.** **6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-49 **Figure 6-5. Example of a field record for fish contaminant monitoring program**  **— intensive study.** **6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-50 **Figure 6-5. (continued) 6. FIELD PROCEDURES** 

6-51 **Figure 6-6. Example of a field record for shellfish contaminant monitoring program**  **— intensive study.** **6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-52 Species Name or Code Sample Type

Total Length or Size (mm) Sampling Site (name/number)

Specimen Number Sampling Date (YYYMMDD)

Time (24-h clock)

**Figure 6-7. Example of a sample identification label.**  Species collected (including species common and scientific name, composite sample number, individual specimen number, number of individuals per composite sample, number of replicate samples, total length/size [mm], sex [male, female, indeterminate])

**Note** : States should specify a unique numbering system to track samples for their own fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs.

 Percent difference in size between the smallest and largest specimens to be composited (smallest individual length [or size] divided by the largest individual length [or size] x 100; should be > 75 percent) and mean composite length or size (mm)

 Notes (including visible morphological abnormalities, e.g., fin erosion, skin ulcers, cataracts, skeletal and exoskeletal anomalies, neoplasms, or parasites).
**6.2.3.2 Sample Identification Label**

& A sample identification label should be completed in indelible ink for each individual fish or shellfish specimen after it is processed to identify each sample uniquely (Figure 6-7). The following information should be included on the sample identification label:

 Species scientific name or code number

 Total length/size of specimen (mm)

 Specimen number

 Sample type: F (fish fillet analysis only) S (shellfish edible portion analysis only) W (whole fish analysis) O (other fish tissue analysis)**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-53 Project Number Collection Agency (name, address, phone)

Sampling Site (name and/or ID number) Sampler (name and signature)

Composition Number/Specimen Number(s) Chemical Analyses * All target analytes * Others (specify) Study Type

Sampling Date (YYYYMMDD) Time (24-h clock) Screening Intensive

Phase I *

Phase II *

Species Name or Code Processing Type of Ice
Whole Body Resection Wet Dry

Comments

**Figure 6-8. Example of a chain-of-custody tag or label.**  Sampling site

& waterbody name and/or identification number

 Sampling date/time (give date in a Year 2000 compliant format [YYYYMMDD] and specify convention for time, e.g., 24-h clock).
A completed sample identification label should be taped to each aluminum-foilwrapped specimen and the specimen should be placed in a waterproof plastic bag.
**6.2.3.3 Chain-of-Custody Label or Tag**

& A COC label or tag should be completed in indelible ink for each individual fish specimen. The information to be completed for each fish is shown in Figure 6-8.

After all information has been completed, the COC label or tag should be taped or attached with string to the outside of the waterproof plastic bag containing the individual fish sample. Information on the COC label/tag should also be recorded on the COC form (Figure 6-9).

Because of the generally smaller size of shellfish, several indivi dual aluminum-foilwrapped shellfish specimens (within the same composite sample) may be placed in the same waterproof plastic bag. A COC label or tag should be completed in indelible ink for each shellfish composite sample. If more than 10 individual**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-54 **Figure 6-9. Example of a chain-of-custody record form. 6. FIELD PROCEDURES** 

6-55 shellfish are to be composited, several waterproof plastic bags may have to be used for the same composite. It is important not to place too many individual specimens in the same plastic bag to ensure proper preservation during shipping, particularly during summer months. Information on the COC label/tag should also be recorded on the COC form (Figure 6-9).
**6.2.3.4 Chain-of-Custody Form**

& A COC form should be completed in indelible ink for each shipping container (e.g., ice chest) used. Information recommended for documentation on the COC form (Figure 6-9) is necessary to track all samples from field collection to receipt at the processing laboratory. In addition, this form can be used for tracking samples through initial laboratory processing (e.g., resection) as described in Section 7.2.
Prior to sealing the ice chest, one copy of the COC form and a copy of the field record sheet should be sealed in a resealable waterproof plastic bag. This plastic bag s hould be taped to the inside cover of the ice chest so that it is maintained with the samples being tracked. Ice chests should be sealed with reinforced tape for shipment.
**6.2.3.5 Field Logbook**

& In addition to the four sample tracking forms discussed above, the field collection team should document in a field logbook any additional information on sample collection activities, hydrologic conditions (e.g., tidal stage), weather conditions, boat or equipment operations, or any other unusual activities observed (e.g., dredging) or problems encountered that would be useful to the program manager in evaluating the quality of the fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring data.

**6.3 SAMPLE HANDLING**
**6.3.1 Sample Selection**
**6.3.1.1 Species Identification**

& As soon as fish, shellfish, and turtles are removed from the collection device, they should be identified by species. Nontarget species or specimens of target species that do not meet size requirements (e.g., juveniles) should be returned to the water. Species identification should be conducted only by experienced personnel knowledgeable of the taxonomy of species in the waterbodies included in the contaminant monitoring program. Taxonomic keys, appropriate for the waters being sampled, should be consulted for species identification. Because the objective of both the screening and intensive monitoring studies is to determine the magnitude of contamination in specific fish, shellfish, and turtle species, it is necessary that all individuals used in a composite sample be of a single species. **Note:** Correct species identification is important and different species should never be combined in a single composite sample.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-56 When sufficient numbers of the target species have been identified to make up a composite sample, the species name and all other appropriate information should be recorded on the field record forms (Figures 6-3 through 6-6).

**Note:** EPA recommends that, when turtles are used as the target species, target analyte concentrations be determined for each turtle rather than for a composite turtle sample.
**6.3.1.2 Initial Inspection and Sorting**

& Individual fish of the selected target species should be rinsed in ambient water to remove any foreign material from the external surface. Large fish should be stunned by a sharp blow to the base of the skull with a wooden club or metal rod. This club or rod should be used solely for the purpose of stunning fish, and care should be taken to keep it reasonably clean to prevent contamination of the samples (Versar, 1982). Small fish may be placed on ice immediately after capture to stun them, thereby facilitating processing and packaging procedures. Once stunned, individual specimens of the target species should be grouped by species and general size class and placed in clean holding trays to prevent contamination. All fish should be inspected carefully to ensure that their skin andfins have not been damaged by the sampling equipment, and damaged specimens should be discarded (Versar, 1982).

Freshwater turtles should be rinsed in ambient water and their external surface scrubbed if necessary to remove any foreign matter from their carapace and limbs. Each turtle should be inspected carefully to ensure that the carapace and extremities have not been damaged by the sampling equipment, and damaged specimens should be discarded (Versar, 1982). Care should be taken when handling large turtles, particularly snapping turtles; many can deliver severe bites. Particularly during procedures that place fingers or hands within striking range of the sharp jaws, covering the turtle's head, neck, and forelimbs with a cloth towel or sack and taping it in place is often sufficient to prevent injury to the field sampling crew (Frye, 1994).
After inspection, each turtle should be placed individually in a heavy burlap sack or canvas bag tied tightly with a strong cord and then placed in an ice-filled cooler. Placing turtles on ice will slow their metabolic rate, making them easier to handle. **Note:** It is recommended that each turtle be analyzed as an individual sample, especially if the target turtle species is not abundant in the waterbody being sampled or if the collected individuals differ greatly in size or age. Analysis of individual turtles can provide an estimate of the maximum contaminant concentrations to which recreational or substistence fishers are exposed. Target analyte concentrations in composite samples represent averages for a specific target species population. The use of these values in risk assessment is appropriate if the objective is to estimate the average concentration to which consumers of the target species are exposed over a long period of time. The use of long exposure periods (e.g., 70 years) is typical for the assessment of**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-57 carcinogenic effects, which may be manifest over an entire lifetime (see Volume II of this guidance series). Noncarcinogenic effects, on the other hand, may cause acute health effects over a relatively short period of time (e.g., hours or days) after consumption. The maximum target analyte contaminant concentration may be more appropriate than the average target analyte concentration for use with noncarginogenic target analytes (U.S. EPA, 1989d). This is especially important for those target analytes for which acute exposures to very high concentrations may be toxic to consumers.
Stone et al. (1980) reported extremely high concentrations of PCBs in various tissues of snapping turtles from a highly contaminated site on the Hudson River. Contaminant analysis of various turtle tissues showed mean PCB levels of 2,991 ppm in fatty tissue, 66 ppm in liver tissue, and 29 ppm in eggs as compared to 4 ppm in skeletal muscle. Clearly, inclusion of the fatty tissue, liver, and eggs with the muscle tissues as part of the edible tissues will increase observed residue concentrations over those detected in muscle tissue only. States interested in using turtles as target species should review Appendix C for additional information on the use of individual samples in contaminant monitoring programs.
Bivalves (oysters, clams, scallops, and mussels) adhering to one another should be separated and scrubbed with a nylon or natural fiber brush to remove any adhering detritus or fouling organisms from the exterior shell surfaces (NOAA, 1987). All bivalves should be inspected carefully to ensure that the shells have not been cracked or damaged by the sampling equipment and damaged specimens should be discarded (Versar, 1982). Crustaceans, including shrimp, crabs, crayfish, and lobsters, should be inspected to ensure that their exoskeletons have not been cracked or damaged during the sampling process, and damaged specimens should be discarded (Versar, 1982). After shellfish have been rinsed, individual specimens should be grouped by target species and placed in clean holding trays to prevent contamination.
A few shellfish specimens may be resected (edible portions removed) to determine wet weight of the edible portions. This will provide an estimate of the number of individuals required to ensure that the recommended sample weight (200 g) is attai ned. **Note:** Individuals used to determine the wet weight of the edible portion should not be used for target analyte analyses.
**6.3.1.3 Length or Size Measurements**

& Each fish within the selected target species should be measured to determine total body length (mm). To be consistent with the convention used by most fisheries biologists in the United States, maximum body length should be measured as shown in Figure 6-10. The maximum body length is defined as the length from the anterior-most part of the fish to the tip of the longest caudal fin ray (when the lobes of the caudal fin are compressed dorsoventrally) (Anderson and Gutreuter, 1983).**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-58 a Maximum body length is the length from the anterior-most part of the fish to the tip of the longest caudal fin ray (when the lobes of the caudal fin are compressed dorsoventrally (Anderson and Gutreuter, 1983).
b Carapace width is the lateral distance across the carapace (from tip of spine to tip of spine (U.S. EPA, 1990c).

c Height is the distance from the umbo to the anterior (ventral) shell margin (Galtsoff, 1964).
d Body length is the distance from the tip of the rostrum to the tip of the telson (Texas Water Commission, 1990).

e Carapace length is distance from top of rostrum to the posterior margin of the carapace.
**Figure 6-10. Recommended measurements of body length and size for fish, shellfish, and turtles.** **6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-59 e Carapace length is the distance from the anterior-most edge of the groove between the horns directly above the eyes, to the rear edge of the top part of the carapace as measured along the middorsal line of the back (Laws of Florida Chapter 46-24.003).
f Tail length is the distance measured lengthwise along the top middorsal line of the entire tail to rear-most extremity (this measurement shall be conducted with the tail in a flat straight position with the tip of the tail closed) (Laws of Florida Chapter 46-24.003).
g Carapace length is the distance from the rear of the eye socket to the posterior margin of the carapace (New York Environmental Conservation Law 13-0329.5.a and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 130).
h Carapace length is the straight-line distance from the anterior margin to the posterior margin of the shell (Conant and Collins, 1991).
**Figure 6-10. (continued) 6. FIELD PROCEDURES** 

6-60 Each turtle within the selected target species should be measured to determine total carapace length (mm). To be consistent with the convention used by most herpetologists in the United States, carapace length should be measured as shown in Figure 6-10. The maximum carapace length is defined as the straight line distance from the anterior edge of the carapace to the posterior edge of the carapace (Conant and Collins, 1991).
For shellfish, each individual specimen should be measured to determine the appropriate body size (mm). As shown in Figure 6-9, the recomm ended body measurements differ depending on the type of shellfish being collected. Height is a standard measurement of size for oysters, mussels, clams, scallops, and other bivalve molluscs (Abbott, 1974; Galtsoff, 1964). The height is the distance from the umbo to the anterior (ventral) shell margin. For crabs, the lateral width of the carapace is a standard size measurement (U.S. EPA, 1990c); for shrimpand crayfish, the standard measurement of body size is the length from the rostrum to the tip of the telson (Texas Water Commission, 1990); and for lobsters, two standard measurements of body size are commonly used. For clawed and spiny lobsters, the standard size is the length of the carapace. For spiny lobsters, the length of the tail is also used as a standard size measurement.
**6.3.1.4 Sex Determination (Optional)**

& An experienced fisheries biologist can often make a preliminary sex determination for fish by visual inspection. The body of the fish should not be dissected in the field to determine sex; sex can be determined through internal examination of the gonads during laboratory processing (Section 7.2.2.4).
An experienced herpetologist can often make a preliminary sex determination of a turtle by visual inspection in the field. The plastron (ventral portion of the carapace) is usually flatter in the female and the tail is less well developed than in the male. The plastron also tends to be more concave in the male (Holmes, 1984). For the common snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina ), the cloaca of the female is usually located inside or at the perimeter of the carapace, while the cloaca of the male extends slightly bey ond the perimeter of the car apace. The carapace of the turtle should never be resected in the field to determine sex; sex can be determined through internal examination of the gonads during laboratory processing (Section 7.2.3.4.). For shellfish, a preliminary sex determination can be made by visual inspection only for crustaceans. Sex cannot be determined in bivalve molluscs without shucking the bivalves and microscopically examining gonadal material. Bivalves should not be shucked in the field to determine sex; sex determination through examination of the gonads can be performed during laboratory processing if desired (Section 7.2.4.2).
**6.3.1.5 Morphological Abnormalities (Optional)**

& If resources allow, states may wish to consider documenting external gross morphological conditions in fish from contaminated waters. Severely polluted**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-61 aquatic habitats have been shown to produce a higher frequency of gross pathological disorders than similar, less polluted habitats (Krahn et al., 1986; Malins et al., 1984, 1985; Mix, 1986; Sinderman, 1983; and Sinderman et al., 1980).
Sinderman et al. (1980) reviewed the literature on the relationship of fish pathology to pollution in marine and estuarine environments and identified four gross morphological conditions acceptable for use in monitoring programs:

 Fin erosion

 Skin ulcers  Skeletal anomalies

 Neoplasms (i.e., tumors).
Fin erosion is the most frequently observed gross morphological abnormality in polluted areas and is found in a variety of fishes (Sinderman, 1983). In demersal fishes, the dorsal and anal fins are most frequently affected; in pelagic fishes, the caudal fin is primarily affected.
Skin ulcers have been found in a variety of fishes from polluted waters and are the second most fr equently reported gross abnormality. Prevalence of ulcers generally varies with season and is often associated with organic enrichment (Sinderman, 1983).
Skeletal anomalies include abnormalities of the head, fins, gills, and spinal column (Sinderman, 1983). Skeletal anomalies of the spinal column include fusions, flexures, and vertebral compressions.
Neoplasms or tumors have been found at a higher frequency in a variety of polluted areas throughout the world. The most frequently reported visible tumors are liver tumors, skin tumors (i.e., epidermal papillomas and/or carcinomas), and neurilemmomas (Sinderman, 1983).
The occurrence of fish parasites and other gross morphological abnormalities that are found at a specific site should be noted on the field record form. States interested in documenting morphological abnormalities in fish should review the protocols for fish pathology studies recommended in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990c) and those described by Goede and Barton (1990).
**6.3.2 Sample Packaging**

**6.3.2.1 Fish**

& After initial processing to determine species, size, sex, and morphological abnormalities, each fish should be indivi dually wrapped in extra heavy duty aluminum foil. Spines on fish should be sheared to minimize punctures in the aluminum foil packaging (Stober, 1991). The sample identification label shown in Figure 6-7 should be taped to the outside of each aluminum foil package, each individual fish should be placed into a waterproof plastic bag and sealed, and the**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-62 COC tag or label should be attached to the outside of the plastic bag with string or tape. All of the packaged individual specimens in a composite sample should be kept together (if possible) in one large waterproof plastic bag in the same shipping container (ice chest) for transport. Once packaged, samples should be cooled on ice immediately.

**6.3.2.2 Turtles**

& After inital processing to determine the species, size (carapace length), and sex, each turtle should be placed on ice in a separate burlap or canvas bag and storedon ice for transport to the processing laboratory. A completed sample identification label (Figure 6-7) should be attached with string around the neck or one of the turtle's extremities and the COC tag or label should be attached to the outside of the bag with string or tape. **Note:** Bagging each turtle should not be undertaken until the specimen has been sufficiently cooled to induce a mild state of torpor, thus facilitating processing. The samplers should work rapidly to return each turtle to the ice chest as soon as possible after packaging as the turtle may suddenly awaken as it warms thus becoming a danger to samplers (Frye, 1994). As mentioned in Section 6.3.1, states should analyze turtles individually rather than compositing samples. This is especially important when very few specimens are collected at a sampling site or when specimens of widely varying size or age are collected.

**Note:** When a large number of individual specimens in the same composite sample are shipped together in the same waterproof plastic bag, the samples must have adequate space in the bag to ensure that contact with ice can occur, thus ensuring proper preservation during shipping. This is especially important when samples are collected during hot weather and/or when the time between field collection and delivery to the processing laboratory approaches the maximum shipping time (Table 6-8).

**6.3.2.3 Shellfish**

& After initial processing to determine species, size, sex, and morphological abnormalities, each shellfish specimen should be wrapped individually in extra heavy duty aluminum foil. A completed sample identification label (Figure 6-7) should be t aped to the outside of each aluminum foil package. **Note** : Some crustacean species (e.g., blue crabs and spiny lobsters) have sharp spines on their carapace that might puncture the aluminum foil wrapping. Carapace spines should never be s heared off because this would destroy the integrity of the carapace. For such species, one of the following procedures should be used to reduce punctures to the outer foil wrapping:

 Double-wrap the entire specimen in extra heavy duty aluminum foil.

 Place clean cork stoppers over the protruding spines prior to wrapping the specimen in aluminum foil.**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-63 **Table 6-8. Recommendations for Preservation of Fish, Shellfish, and Turtle Samples from Time of Collection to Delivery at the Processing Laboratory** 

**Sample type Number per**  **composite Container Preservation Maximum**  **shipping**

**time**
**Fish a** 

Whole fish (to be filleted) 3-10 Extra heavy duty aluminum foil wrap of each fish. b Each fish is placed in a waterproof plastic bag. Cool on wet ice or blue ice packets (preferred method) or Freeze on dry ice only if shipping time will exceed 24 hours 24 hours

48 hours

Whole fish 3-10 Same as above. Cool on wet ice or blue ice packets or Freeze on dry ice 24 hours

48 hours
**Shellfish a** 

Whole shellfish (to be resected for edible tissue) 3-50 c Extra heavy duty aluminum foil wrap of each specimen. b Shellfish in the same composite sample may be placed in the same waterproof plastic bag. Cool on wet ice or blue ice packets (preferred method) or Freeze on dry ice if shipping time will exceed 24 hours 24 hours

48 hours

Whole shellfish 3-50 c Same as above. Cool on wet ice or blue ice packets or Freeze on dry ice 24 hours

48 hours
Whole turtles (to be resected for edible tissue) 1 d Heavy burlap or canvas bags. Cool on wet ice or blue ice packets (preferred method) or Freeze on dry ice if shipping time to exceed 24 hours 24 hours

48 hours

a Use only individuals that have attained at least legal harvestable or consumable size. b Aluminum foil should not be used for long-term storage of any sample (i.e., whole organisms, fillets, or

homogenates) that will be analyzed for metals.

c Species and size dependent. For very small shellfish species, more than 50 individuals may be required to

achieve the 200-g composite sample mass recommended for screening studies. d Turtles should be analyzed as individual rather than as composite samples.

 Wrap the spines with multiple layers of foil before wrapping the entire specimen in aluminum foil.
All of the individual aluminum-foil-wrapped shellfish specimens (in the same composite sample) should be placed in the same waterproof plastic bag for transport. In this case, a COC tag or label should be completed for the composite sample and appropriate information recorded on the field record sheet and COC form. The COC label or tag should then be attached to the outside of the plastic**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-64 bag with string or tape. For composite samples containing more than 10 shellfish specimens or especially large individuals, additional waterproof plastic bags may be required to ensure proper preservation. Once packaged, composite samples should be cooled on ice immediately. **Note** : When a large number of individual specimens in the same composite sample are shipped together in the same waterproof plastic bag, the samples must have adequate space in the bag to ensure that contact with ice can occur; thus ensuring proper preservation during shipping. This is especially important when samples are collected during hot weather and/or when the time between field collection and delivery to the processing laboratory approaches the maximum shipping time (Table 6-8).
**6.3.3 Sample Preservation**
The type of ice to be used for shipping should be determined by the length of time the samples will be in transit to the processing laboratory and the sample type to be analyzed (Table 6-8).
**6.3.3.1 Fish, Turtles, or Shellfish To Be Resected**

&
**Note:** Ideally fish, turtles, and shellfish specimens should not be frozen prior to resection if analyses will include edible tissue only because freezing may cause some internal organs to rupture and contaminate fillets or other edible tissues (Stober, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1986b). Wet ice or blue ice (sealed prefrozen ice packets) is recommended as the preservative of choice when the fish fillet, turtle meat, or shellfish edible portions are the primary tissues to be analyzed. Samples shipped on wet or blue ice should be delivered to the processing laboratory within 24 hours (Smith, 1985; U.S. EPA, 1990d). If the shipping time to the processing laboratory will exceed 24 hours, dry ice should be used.

**Note:** One exception to the use of dry ice for long-term storage is if fish or shellfish are collected as part of extended offshore field surveys. States involved in these types of field surveys may employ shipboard freezers to preserve samples for extended periods rather than using dry ice. Ideally, all fish should be resected in cleanrooms aboard ship prior to freezing.
**6.3.3.2 Fish, Turtles, or Shellfish for Whole-Body Analysis**

& At some sites, states may deem it necessary to collect fish, turtles, or shellfish for whole-body analysis if a local subpopulation of concern typically consumes whole fish, turtles, or shellfish. If whole fish, turtles, or shellfish samples are to be analyzed, either wet ice, blue ice, or dry ice may be used; however, if the shipping time to the processing laboratory will exceed 24 hours, dry ice should be used.
Dry ice requires special packaging precautions before shipping by aircraft to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 173.217) classifies dry ice as Hazard Class 9 UN1845 (Hazardous Material). These regulations specify the amount of dry ice**6. FIELD PROCEDURES**

6-65 that may be shipped by air transport and the type of packaging r equired. For each shipment by air exceeding 5 pounds of dry ice per package, advance arrangements must be made with the carrier. Not more than 441 pounds of dry ice may be transported in any one cargo compartment on any aircraft unless the shipper has made special written arrangements with the aircraft operator.
The regulations further specify that the packaging must be designed and constructed to permit the release of carbon dioxide gas to prevent a buildup of pressure that could rupture the package. If samples are transported in a cooler, several vent holes should be drilled to allow carbon dioxide gas to escape. The vents should be near the top of the vertical sides of the cooler, rather than in the cover, to prevent debris from falling into the cooler. Wire screen or cheesecloth should be installed in the vents to keep foreign materials from contaminating the cooler. When the samples are packaged, care should be taken to keep these vents open to prevent the buildup of pressure.
Dry ice is exempted from shipping certification requirements if the amount is less than 441 pounds and the package meets design requirements. The package must be marked "Carbon Dioxide, Solid" or "Dry Ice" with a statement indicating that the material being refrigerated is to be used for diagnostic or treatment purposes (e.g., frozen tissue samples).
**6.3.4 Sample Shipping**
The fish, turtle, and shellfish samples should be hand-delivered or shipped to the processing laboratory as soon as possible after collection. The time the samples were collected and time of their arrival at the processing laboratory s hould be recorded on the COC form (Figure 6-9).
If the sample is to be shipped rather than hand-delivered to the processing laboratory, field collection staff must ensure the samples are packed properly with adequate ice layered between samples so that sample degradation does not occur. In addition, a member of the field collection staff should telephone ahead to the processing laboratory to alert them to the anticipated delivery time of the samples and the name and address of the carrier to be used. Field collection staff should avoid shipping samples for weekend delivery to the processing laboratory unless prior plans for such a delivery have been agreed upon with the processing laboratory staff.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I — SAMPLE HANDLING

7-1 

## SECTION 7

LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

—SAMPLE HANDLING
This section provides guidance on laboratory procedures for sample receipt, chain-of-custody, processing, distribution, analysis, and archiving. Planning, documentation, and quality assurance and quality control of all laboratory activities are emphasized to ensure that (1) sample integrity is preserved during all phases of sample handling and analysis, (2) chemical analyses are performed cost-effectively and meet program data quality objectives, and (3) data produced by different states and regions are comparable.
Laboratory procedures should be documented in a Work/QA Project Plan (U.S. EPA, 1980b) as described in Appendix I. Routine sample processing and analysis procedures should be prepared as standard operating procedures (SOPs) (U.S. EPA, 1984b).

7.1 SAMPLE RECEIPT AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
Fish, shellfish, and turtle samples may be shipped or hand-carried from the field according to one or more of the following pathways:
• From the field to a state laboratory for sample processing and analysis • From the field to a state laboratory for sample processing and shipment of composite sample aliquots to a contract laboratory for analysis • From the field to a contract laboratory for sample processing and analysis.
Sample processing and distribution for analysis ideally should be performed by one processing laboratory. Transportation of samples from the field should be coordinated by the sampling team supervisor and the laboratory supervisor responsible for sample processing and distribution (see Section 6.3.4). An accurate written custody record must be maintained so that possession and treatment of each sample can be traced from the time of collection through analysis and final disposition.
Fish, shellfish, and turtle samples should be bro ught or shi pped to the sample processing laboratory in sealed containers accompanied by a copy of the sample request form (Figure 6-1), a chain-of-custody form (Figure 6-9), and the field records (Figures 6-3 through 6-6). Each time custody of a sample or set of samples is transferred, the Personnel Custody Record of the COC form must be completed and signed by both parties. Corrections to the COC form should be made in indelible ink by drawing a single line through the original entry, entering7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-2 the correct information and the reason for the change, and initialing and dating the correction. The original entry should never be obscured.
When custody is transferred from the field to the sample processing laboratory, the following procedure should be used:

• Note the shipping time. If samples have been shipped on wet or blue ice, check that the shipping time has not exceeded 24 hours.

• Check that each shipping container has arrived undamaged and that the seal is intact.

• Open each shipping container and remove the copy of the sample request form, the COC form, and the field records.

• Note the general condition of the shipping container (samples iced properly with no leaks, etc.) and the accompanying documentation (dry, legible, etc.).

• Locate individuals in each composite sample listed on the COC form and note the condition of their packaging. Individual specimens should be properly wrapped and labeled. Note any problems (container punctured, illegible labels, etc.) on the COC form.

• If individuals in a composite are packaged together, check the contents of each composite sample container against the field record for that sample to ensure that the individual specimens are properly wrapped and labeled. Note any discrepancies or missing information on the COC form.

• Initial the COC form and record the date and time of sample receipt.

• Enter the following information for each composite sample into a permanent laboratory record book and, if applicable, a computer database:

— Sample identification number (specify conventions for the composite sample number and the specimen number) Note: EPA recommends processing and analysis of turtles as individual samples.

— Receipt date (use Year 2000 comliant format [YYYYMMDD])

— Sampling date (use Year 2000 comliant format [YYYYMMDD])

— Sampling site (name and/or identification number)

— Fish, turtle, and shellfish species (scientific name or code number)

— Total length of each fish, carapace length of each turtle, or size of each shellfish (mm)7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-3 • If samples have been shipped on wet or blue ice, distribute them immediately to the technician responsible for resection (see Section 7.2). See Section 7.2.3 for the procedure for processing turtle samples as individual samples. If samples have been shipped on dry ice, they may be distributed immediately to the technician for processing or stored in a freezer at  -20 C for later processing. Once processed, fillets or edible portions of fish, turtles, or shellfish or tissue homogenates, should be stored according to the procedures described in Section 7.2 and in Table 7-1. Note : Holding times in Table 7-1 are maximum times recommended for holding samples from the time they are received at the laboratory until they are analyzed. These holding times are based on guidance that is sometimes administrative rather than technical in nature; there are no promulgated holding time criteria for tissues (U.S. EPA, 1995i). If states choose to use longer holding times, they must demonstrate and document the stability of the target analyte residues over the extended holding times.

7.2 SAMPLE PROCESSING
This section includes recommended procedures for preparing composite homogenate samples of fish fillets and edible portions of shellfish and individual samples of edible portions of freshwater turtles as required in screening and intensive studies. Recommended procedures for preparing whole fish composite homogenates are included in Appendix J for use by states in assessing the potential risk to local subpopulations known to consume whole fish or shellfish.

7.2.1 General Considerations
All laboratory personnel performing sample processing procedures (see Sections 7.2.2, 7.2.3, and 7.2.4) should be trained or supervised by an experienced fisheries biologist. Care must be taken during sample processing to avoid contaminating samples. Schmitt and Finger (1987) have demonstrated that contamination of fish flesh samples is likely unless the most exacting clean dissection procedures are used. Potential sources of contamination include dust, instruments, utensils, work surfaces, and containers that may contact the samples. All sample processing (i.e., filleting, removal of other edible tissue, homogenizing, compositing) should be done in an appropriate laboratory facility under cleanroom conditions (Stober, 1991). Cleanrooms or work areas should be free of metals and organic contaminants. Ideally, these areas should be under positive pressure with filtered air (HEPA filter class 100) (California Department of Fish and Game, 1990). Periodic wipe tests should be conducted in clean areas to verify the absence of significant levels of metal and organic contaminants. All instruments, work surfaces, and containers used to process samples must be of materials that can be cleaned easily and that are not themselves potential sources of contamination. More detailed guidance on establishing trace metal cleanrooms is provided in U.S. EPA (1995a).7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-4 Table 7-1. Recommendations for Container Materials, Preservation, and Holding Times for Fish, Shellfish, and Turtle Tissues from Receipt at Sample Processing Laboratory to Analysis

Analyte Matrix Sample container Storage Preservation Holding time a Mercury Tissue (fillets and edible portions, homogenates) Plastic, borosilicate glass, quartz, PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 28 days b

Other metals Tissue (fillets and edible portions, homogenates) Plastic, borosilicate glass, quartz, PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 6 months c

Organics Tissue (fillets and edible portions, homogenates) Borosilicate glass, PTFE, quartz, aluminum foil Freeze at < -20 C 1 year d

Metals and organics Tissue (fillets and edible portions, homogenates) Borosilicate glass, quartz, PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 28 days (for mercury);

6 months (for other metals); and 1 year (for organics) Lipids Tissue (fillets and edible portions, homogenates) Plastic, borosilicate glass, quartz, PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 1 year

PTFE = Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon).

a Maximum holding times recommended by EPA (1995i). b This maximum holding time is also recommended by the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990e). The

California Department of Fish and Game (1990) and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (Crawford and Luoma, 1993) recommend a maximum holding time of 6 months for all metals, including mercury.
c This maximum holding time is also recommended by the California Department of Fish and Game (1990),

the 301(h) monitoring program (U.S. EPA, 1986b), and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (Crawford and Luoma, 1993). The Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990e) recommends a maximum holding time of 2 years. d This maximum holding time is also recommended by the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990e). The

California Department of Fish and Game (1990) and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (Crawford and Luoma, 1993) recommend a more conservative maximum holding time of 6 months. U.S. EPA (1995b) recommends a maximum holding time of 1 year at  -10 C for dioxins/furans.
To avoid cross-contamination, all equipment used in sample processing (i.e., resecting, homogenizing, and compositing) should be cleaned thoroughly before each composite sample is prepared. Verification of the efficacy of cleaning procedures should be documented through the analysis of processing blanks or rinsates (see Section 8.3.3.6).
Because sources of organic and metal contaminants differ, it is recommended that duplicate samples be collected, if time and funding permit, when analyses of both organics and metals are required (e.g., for screening studies). One sample can then be processed and analyzed for organics and the other can be processed independently and analyzed for metals (Batelle, 1989; California Department of Fish and Game, 1990; Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990c, 1990d). If fish are of adequate size, separate composites of individual fillets may be prepared and7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-5 analyzed independently for metals and organics. If only one composite sample is prepared for the analyses of metals and organics, the processing equipment must be chosen and cleaned carefully to avoid contamination by both organics and metals.
Suggested sample processing equipment and cleaning procedures by analysis type are discussed in Sections 7.2.1.1 through 7.2.1.3. Other procedures may be used if it can be demonstrated, through the analysis of appropriate blanks, that no contamination is introduced (see Section 8.3.3.6).
7.2.1.1 Samples for Organics Analysis

— Equipment used in processing samples for organics analysis should be of stainless steel, anodized aluminum, borosilicate glass, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), ceramic, or quartz. Polypropylene and polyethylene (plastic) surfaces, implements, gloves, and containers are a potential source of contamination by organics and should not be used. If a laboratory chooses to use these materials, there should be clear documentation that they are not a source of contamination. Filleting should be done on glass or PTFE cutting boards that are cleaned properly between fish or on cutting boards covered with heavy duty aluminum foilthat is changed after each filleting. Tissue should be removed with clean, highquality, corrosion-resistant stainless steel or quartz instruments or with knives with titanium blades and PTFE h andles (Lowenstein and Yo ung, 1986). Fillets or tissue homogenates may be stored in borosilicate glass, quartz, or PTFE containers with PTFE-lined lids or in heavy duty aluminum foil (see Table 7-1).
Prior to preparing each composite sample, utensils and containers should be washed with detergent solution, rinsed with tap water, soaked in pesticide-grade isopropanol or acetone, and rinsed with or ganic-free, distilled, deionized water. Work surfaces should be cleaned with pesticide-grade isopr opanol or acet one, washed with distilled water, and allowed to dry completely. Knives, fish scalers, measurement boards, etc., should be cleaned with pesticide-grade isopropanol or acetone followed by a rinse with contaminant-free distilled water between each fish sample (Stober, 1991).
7.2.1.2 Samples for Metals Analysis

— Equipment used in processing samples for metals analyses should be of quartz, PTFE, ceramic, polypropylene, or polyethylene. The predominant metal contaminants from stainless steel are chromium and nickel. If these metals are not of concern, the use of high-quality, corrosion-resistant stainless steel for sample processing equipment is acceptable. Quartz utensils are ideal but expensive. For bench liners and bottles, borosilicate glass is preferred over plastic (Stober, 1991). Knives with titanium bl ades and PTFE handles are recommended for performing tissue resections (Lowenstein and Young, 1986). Borosilicate glass bench liners are recommended. Filleting may be done on glass or PTFE cutting boards that are cleaned properly between fish or on cutting7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-6 boards covered with heavy duty aluminum foil that is changed after each fish. Fillets or tissue homogenates may be stored in plastic, borosilicate glass, quartz, or PTFE containers (see Table 7-1).
Prior to preparing each composite sample, utensils and containers should be cleaned thoroughly with a deter gent solution, rinsed with tap water, soaked in acid, and then rinsed with metal-free water. Quartz, PTFE, glass, or plastic containers should be soaked in 50 percent HN0 3 , for 12 to 24 hours at room temperature. Note: Chromic acid should not be used for cleaning any materials. Acids used should be at least reagent grade. Stainless steel parts may be cleaned as stated for glass or plastic, omitting the acid soaking step (Stober, 1991).
7.2.1.3 Samples for Both Organics and Metals Analyses

— As noted above, several established monitoring programs, including the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990c, 1990d), the NOAA Mussel Watch Program (Battelle, 1989), and the California Mussel Watch Program (California D epartment of Fish and Game, 1990), recommend different procedures for processing samples for organics and metals analyses. However, this may not be feasible if fish are too small to allow for preparing separate composites from individual fillets or if resources are limited. If a single composite sample is prepared for the analyses of both organics and metals, precautions must be taken to use materials and cleaning procedures that are noncontaminating for both organics and metals.
Quartz, ceramic, borosilicate glass, and PTFE are recommended materials forsample processing equipment. If chromium and nickel are not of concern, highquality, corrosion-resistant stainless steel utensils may be used. Knives with titanium blades and PTFE handles are recommended for performing tissue resections (Lowenstein and Young, 1986). Borosilicate glass bench liners are recommended. Filleting should be done on glass or PTFE cutting boards that are cleaned properly between fish or on cutting boards covered with heavy duty aluminum foil that is changed after each filleting. Fillets or tissue homogenates should be stored in clean borosilicate glass, quartz, or PTFE containers with PTFE-lined lids.
Prior to preparing each composite sample, utensils and containers s hould be cleaned thoroughly with a detergent solution, rinsed with tap water, soaked in 50 percent HNO 3 , for 12 to 24 hours at room temperature, and then rinsed with organics- and metal-free water. Note: Chromic acid should not be used for cleaning any materials. Acids used should be at least reagent grade. Stainless steel parts may be cleaned using this recomm ended proc edure with the acid soaking step method omitted (Stober, 1991).
Aliquots of composite homogenates taken for metals analysis (see Section 7.3.1) may be stored in plastic containers that have been cleaned according to the7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-7 procedure outlined above, with the exception that aqua regia must not be used for the acid soaking step.
7.2.2 Processing Fish Samples
Processing in the laboratory to prepare fish fillet composite homogenate samples for analysis (diagrammed in Figure 7-1) involves

• Inspecting individual fish

• Weighing individual fish

• Removing scales and/or otoliths for age determination (optional)

• Determining the sex of each fish (optional)

• Examining each fish for morphological abnormalities (optional)

• Scaling all fish with scales (leaving belly flap on); removing skin of scaleless fish (e.g., catfish)

• Filleting (resection)

• Weighing fillets

• Homogenizing fillets

• Preparing a composite homogenate

• Preparing aliquots of the composite homogenate for analysis

• Distributing frozen aliquots to one or more analytical laboratories.
Whole fish should be shipped or brought to the sample processing laboratory from the field on wet or blue ice within 24 hours of sample collection. Fillets should be resected within 48 hours of sample collection. Ideally, fish should not be frozen prior to resection because freezing may cause internal organs to rupture and contaminate edible tissue (Stober, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1986b). However, if resection cannot be performed within 48 hours, the whole fish should be frozen at the sampling site and shipped to the sample processing laboratory on dry ice. Fish samples that arrive frozen (i.e., on dry ice) at the sample processing laboratory should be placed in a  20 C freezer for storage until filleting can be performed. The fish should then be partially thawed prior to resection. Note: If the fillet tissue is contaminated by materials released from the rupture of the internal organsduring freezing, the state may eliminate the fillet tissue as a sample or, alternatively, the fillet tissues should be rinsed in contaminant-free, dist illed deionized7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-8 Composite equal weights (g) of homogenized fillet tissues from the

selected number of fish (200-g)

Seal and label (200-g) composite homogenate in appropriate container(s) and store at ≤ -20 ° C until analysis (see Table 7-1 for recommended container materials and holding times). Log in fish samples using COC procedures

Unwrap and inspect individual fish

Weigh individual fish

Remove and archive scales and/or otoliths for age determination (optional)

Determine sex (optional); note morphological abnormalities (optional)

Save remainder of fillet homogenate from each fish

Seal and label individual fillet homogenates in appropriate container(s) and archive at ≤ -20 ° C (see Table 7-1 for recommended container materials and holding times). Remove scales from all scaled fish Remove skin from scaleless fish (e.g., catfish)

COC = Chain of custody. Fillet fish

Weigh fillets (g)

Homogenize fillets

Divide homogenized sample into quarters, mix opposite quarters, and then mix halves (3 times)

Optional

Figure 7-1. Preparation of fish fillet composite homogenate samples.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-9 water and blotted dry. Regardless of the procedure selected, a notation should be made in the sample processing record.
Sample processing procedures are discussed in the following sections. Data from each procedure should be recorded directly in a bound laboratory notebook or on forms that can be secured in the laboratory notebook. A sample processing record for fish fillet composites is shown in Figure 7-2.
7.2.2.1 Sample Inspection

— Individual fish received for filleting should be unwrapped and inspected carefully to ensure that they have not been compromised in any way (i.e., not properly preserved during shipment). Any specimen deemed unsuitable for further processing and analysis should be discarded and identified on the sample processing record.
7.2.2.2 Sample Weighing

— A wet weight should be determined for each fish. All samples should be weighed on balances that are properly calibrated and of adequate accuracy and precision to meet program data quality objectives. Balance calibration should be checked at the beginning and end of each weighing session and after every 20 weighings in a weighing session.
Fish shipped on wet or blue ice should be weighed directly on a foil-lined balance tray. To prevent cross contamination between individual fish, the foil lining should be replaced after each weighing. Frozen fish (i.e., those shipped on dry ice) should be weighed in clean, tared, noncontaminating containers if they will thaw before the weighing can be completed. Note: Liquid from the thawed whole fish sample will come not only from the fillet tissue but from the gut and body cavity, which are not part of the final fillet sample. Consequently, inclusion of this liquid with the sample may result in an overestimate of target analyte and lipid concentrations in the fillet homogenate. Nevertheless, it is recommended, as a conservative approach, that all liquid from the thawed whole fish sample be kept in the container as part of the sample.
All weights should be recorded to the nearest gram on the sample processing record and/or in the laboratory notebook.
7.2.2.3 Age Determination (Optional)

— Age provides a good indication of the duration of exposure to pollutants (Versar, 1982). A few scales or otoliths (Jearld, 1983) should be removed from each fish and delivered to a fisheries biologist for age determination. For most warm water inland gamefish, 5 to 10 scales should be removed from below the lateral line and behind the pectoral fin. On soft-rayed fish such as trout and salmon, the scales should be taken just above the lateral line (WDNR, 1988). For catfish and other7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-10Figure 7-2. Sample processing record for fish contaminant monitoring program—fish fillet composites.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-11 scaleless fish, the pectoral fin spines should be clipped and saved (Versar, 1982). The scales, spines, or otoliths may be stored by sealing them in small envelopes (such as coin envelopes) or plastic bags labeled with, and cross-referenced by, the identification number assigned to the tissue specimen (Versar, 1982). Removal of scales, spines, or otoliths from each fish should be noted (by a check mark) on the sample processing record.
7.2.2.4 Sex Determination (Optional)

— Fish sex should be determined before filleting. To determine the sex of a fish, an incision should be made on the ventral surface of the body from a point immediately anterior to the anus toward the head to a point immediately posterior to the pelvic fins. If necessary, a second incision should be made on the left side of the fish from the initial point of the first incision toward the dorsal fin. The resulting flap should be folded back to observe the gonads. Ovaries appear whitish to greenish to golden brown and have a granular texture. Testes appear creamy white and have a smooth texture (Texas Water Commission, 1990). The sex of each fish should be recorded on the sample processing form.
7.2.2.5 Assessment of Morphological Abnormalities (Optional)

— Assessment of gross morphological abnormalities in finfish is optional. This assessment may be conducted in the field (see Section 6.3.1.5) or during initial inspection at the processing laboratory prior to f illeting. States interested in documenting morphological abnormalities should consult Sinderman (1983) and review recommended protocols for fish pathology studies used in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990c) and those described by Goede and Barton (1990).
7.2.2.6 Scaling or Skinning

— To control contamination, separate sets of utensils and cutting boards should be used for skinning or scaling fish and for filleting fish. Fish with scales should be scaled and any adhering slime removed prior to filleting. Fish without scales (e.g., catfish) should be skinned prior to filleting. These fillet types are recommended because it is believed that they are most representative of the edible portions of fish prepared and consumed by sport anglers. However, it is the responsibility of each program manager, in consultation with state fisheries experts, to select the fillet or sample type most appropriate for each target species based on the dietary customs of local populations of concern.
A fish is scaled by laying it flat on a clean glass or PTFE cutting board or on one that has been covered with heavy duty aluminum foil and removing the scales and adhering slime by scraping from the tail to the head using the blade edge of a clean stainless steel, ceramic, or titanium knife. Cross-contamination is controlled by rinsing the cutting board and knife with contaminant-free distilled water between fish. If an aluminum-foil-covered cutting board is used, the foil should be7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-12 changed between fish. The skin should be removed from fish without scales by loosening the skin just behind the gills and pulling it off between knife blade and thumb or with pliers as shown in Figure 7-3.
Once the scales and slime have been scraped off or the skin removed, the outside of the fish should be washed with contaminant-free distilled water and it should be placed on a second clean cutting board for filleting.
7.2.2.7 Filleting

— Filleting should be conducted only by or under the supervision of an experienced fisheries biologist. If gloves are worn, they should be talc- or dust-free, and of noncontaminating materials. Prior to filleting, hands should be washed with Ivory soap and rinsed thoroughly in tap water, followed by distilled water (U.S. EPA, 1991d). Specimens should come into contact with noncontaminating surfaces only. Fish should be filleted on glass or PTFE cutting boards that are cleaned properly between fish or on cutting boards covered with heavy duty aluminum foil that is changed between fish (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d, 1990e). Care must be taken to avoid contaminating fillet tissues with material released from inadvertent puncture of internal organs. Note: If the fillet tissue is contaminated by materials released from the inadvertent puncture of the internal organs during resection, the state may eliminate the fillet tissue as a sample or, alternatively, the fillet tissue should be rinsed in contaminant-free, deionized distilled water and blotted dry. Regardless of the procedure selected, a notation should be made in the sample processing record.
Ideally, fish should be filleted while ice crystals are still present in the muscle tissue. Therefore, if fish have been frozen, they should not be allowed to thaw completely prior to filleting. Fish should be thawed only to the point where it becomes possible to make an incision into the flesh (U.S. EPA, 1991d).
Clean, high-quality stainless steel, ceramic, or titanium utensils should be used to remove one or both fillets from each fish, as necessary. The general procedure recommended for filleting fish is illustrated in Figure 7-3 (U.S. EPA, 1991d).
The belly flap should be included in each fillet. Any dark muscle tissue in the vicinity of the lateral line should not be separated from the light muscle tissue that constitutes the rest of the muscle tissue mass. Bones still present in the tissue after filleting should be removed carefully (U.S. EPA, 1991d).
If both fillets are removed from a fish, they can be combined or kept separate for duplicate QC analysis, analysis of different analytes, or archival of one fillet. Fillets should be weighed (either individually or combined, depending on the analytical requirements) and the weight(s) recorded to the nearest gram on the sample processing record.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-13 Source: U.S. EPA, 1991d.
Figure 7-3. Illustration of basic fish filleting procedure.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-14 If fillets are to be homogenized immediately, they should be placed in a properly cleaned glass or PTFE homogenization container. If samples are to be analyzed for metals only, plastic homogenization containers may be used. To facilitate homogenization, it may be necessary or desirable to chop each fillet into smaller pieces using a titanium or stainless steel knife prior to placement in the homogenization container.
If fillets are to be homogenized later, they should be wrapped in heavy duty aluminum foil and labeled with the sample identification number, the sample type (e.g., "F" for fillet), the weight (g), and the date of resection. If composite homogenates are to be prepared from only a single f illet from each fish, fillets should be wrapped separately and the designation "F1" and "F2" should be added to the sample identification number for each fillet. The individual fillets from each fish should be kept together. All fillets from a composite sample should be placed in a plastic bag labeled with the composite i dentification number, the individual sample identification numbers, and the date of resection and stored at  -20 C until homogenization.
7.2.2.8 Preparation of Individual Homogenates

— To ensure even distribution of contaminants throughout tissue samples and to facilitate extraction and digestion of samples, the fillets from individual fish must be ground and homogenized prior to analysis. The fillets from an individual fish may be ground and homogenized separately or combined, depending on the analytical requirements and the sample size.
Fish fillets should be ground and homogenized using an automatic grinder or highspeed blender or homogenizer. Large fillets may be cut into 2.5-cm cubes with high-quality stainless steel or titanium knives or with a food service band saw prior to homogenization. Parts of the blender or homogenizer used to grind the tissue (i.e., blades, probes) should be made of tantalum or titanium rather than stainless steel. Stainless steel blades and/or probes have been found to be a potential source of nickel and chromium contamination (due to abrasion at high speeds) and should be avoided.
Grinding and homogenization of tissue is easier when it is partially frozen (Stober, 1991). Chilling the grinder/blender briefly with a few chips of dry ice will also help keep the tissue from sticking to it (Smith, 1985).
The fillet sample should be ground until it appears to be homogeneous. The ground sample should then be divided into quarters, opposite quarters mixed together by hand, and the two halves mixed together. The grinding, quartering, and hand-mixing steps should be repeated at least two more times. If chunks of tissue are present at this point, the grinding and homogenization should be repeated. Note: Skin-on fillets are the fish fillet sample type recommended for use in state fish contaminant monitoring programs. However, skin-on fillets of some finfish species are especially difficult to homogenize completely. No chunks7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-15 of tissue or skin should remain in the sample homogenate because these may not be extracted or digested efficiently and could bias the analytical results. If complete homogenization of skin-on fillets for a particular target species is a chronic problem or if local consumers are likely to prepare skinless f illets of the species, the state should consider analyzing skinless fillet samples. If the sample is to be analyzed for metals only, the ground tissue may be mixed by hand in a polyethylene bag (Stober, 1991). The preparation of each individual homogenate should be noted (marked with a check) on the sample processing record. At this time, individual homogenates may be either processed further to prepare composite homogenates or frozen separately and stored at  -20 C (see Table 7-1).
7.2.2.9 Preparation of Composite Homogenates

— Composite homogenates should be prepared from equal weights of individual homogenates. The same type of individual homogenate (i.e., either single fillet or combined fillet) should always be used in a given composite sample.
If individual homogenates have been frozen, they should be thawed partially and rehomogenized prior to weighing and compositing. Any associated liquid should be kept as a part of the sample. The weight of each individual homogenate used in the composite homogenate should be recorded, to the nearest gram, on the sample processing record.
Each composite homogenate should be blended as described for individual homogenates in Section 7.2.2.8. The composite homogenate may be processed immediately for analysis or frozen and stored at  -20 C (see Table 7-1).
The remainder of each individual homogenate should be archived at  -20 C with the designation "Archive" and the expiration date recorded on the sample label. The location of the archived samples should be indicated on the sample processing record under "Notes."
It is essential that the weights of individual homogenates yield a composite homogenate of adequate size to perform all necessary analyses. Weights of individual homogenates required for a composite homogenate, based on the number of fish per composite and the weight of composite homogenate recommended for analyses of all screening study target analytes (see Table 4-1), are given in Table 7-2. The total composite weight required for intensive studies may be less than that for screening studies if the number of target analytes is reduced significantly.
The recommended sample size of 200 g for screening studies is intended to provide sufficient sample material to (1) analyze for all recommended target analytes (see Table 4-1) at appropriate detection limits; (2) meet minimum QC requirements for the analyses of laboratory duplicate, matrix spike, and matrix spike duplicate samples (see Sections 8.3.3.4 and 8.3.3.5); and (3) allow for7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-16 Table 7-2. Weights (g) of Individual Homogenates Required for Screening Study Composite Homogenate Sample a,b

Number of fish per sample Total composite weight 100 g (minimum) 200 g (recommended) 500 g (maximum)
3 33 67 167
4 25 50 125
5 20 40 100
6 17 33 84

7 14 29 72
8 13 25 63
9 11 22 56
10 10 20 50

a Based on total number of fish per composite and the total composite weight required for

analysis in screening studies. The total composite weight required in intensive studies may be less if the number of target analytes is reduced significantly. b Individual homogenates may be prepared from one or both fillets from a fish. A composite

homogenate should be prepared only from individual homogenates of the same type (i.e., either from individual homogenates each prepared from a single fillet or from individual homogenates each prepared from both fillets).
reanalysis if the QC control limits are not met or if the sample is lost. However, sample size requirements may vary among laboratories and the analytical methods used. Each program manager must consult with the analytical laboratory supervisor to determine the actual weights of composite homogenates required to analyze for all selected target analytes at appropriate detection limits.
7.2.3 Processing Turtle Samples
Processing in the laboratory to prepare individual turtle homogenate samples for analysis (diagrammed in Figure 7-4) involves

• Inspecting individual turtles

• Weighing individual turtles

• Removing edible tissues

• Determining the sex of each turtle (optional)

• Determining the age of each turtle (optional)

• Weighing edible tissue or tissues

• Homogenizing tissues

• Preparing individual homogenate samples

• Preparing aliquots of the individual homogenates for analysis

• Distributing frozen aliquots to one or more analytical laboratories.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-17 Weigh edible tissue (g) (muscle with or without other internal tissues added)

Homogenize edible tissue sample

Divide homogenized sample into quarters, mix opposite quarters, and then mix halves (3 times)

Seal and label (200-g) individual homogenate in appropriate container(s) and store at ≤ -20 ° C until analysis (see Table 7-1 for recommended container

materials and holding times). Log in turtle samples using COC procedures

Remove turtle from bag and inspect turtle

Weigh individual turtle

Sever bony bridges on ventral side; remove plastron

Weigh heart, liver, fatty deposits, and eggs separately (g)

Homogenize individual tissue types separately

Divide homogenized sample of each tissue type into quarters, mix opposite quarters, and then mix halves (3 times)

Seal and label individual tissue homogenates in appropriate container(s) and archive at ≤ -20 ° C until analysis (see Table 7-1 for recommended container materials and holding times). Resect forelimbs, hindlimbs, neck, and tail muscle tissue from the body. Skin all muscle tissue, remove claws and bones. Also resect muscle tissue inside carapace. NOTE: Depending on dietary practices of population of concern, add heart, liver, fatty tissues, and eggs to muscle sample or, alternatively, retain these other tissues for separate analysis.

COC = Chain of custody. Seal and label remaining individual homogenate in appropriate container(s) and store at ≤ -20 ° C until analysis (see Table 7-1 for recommended container

materials and holding times). Optional Determine the sex of each turtle (optional)

Retain bones for age determination (optional)

Figure 7-4. Preparation of individual turtle homogenate samples.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-18 Whole turtles should be shipped or brought to the sample processing laboratory from the field on wet or blue ice within 24 hours of sample collection. The recommended euthanizing met hod for turtles is freezing (Frye, 1 994) and a minimum of 48 hours or more may be required for large specimens. Turtles that arrive on wet or blue ice or frozen (i.e., on dry ice) at the sample processing laboratory should be placed in a  -20 C freezer for storage until resection can be performed. If rupture of internal organs is noted for an individual turtle, the specimen may be eliminated as a sample or, alternatively, the edible tissues should be rinsed in distilled deionized water and blotted dry.
Sample processing procedures are discussed in the following sections. Data from each procedure should be recorded directly in a bound laboratory notebook or on forms that can be secured in the laboratory not ebook. A sample processing record for individual turtle samples is shown in Figure 7-5.
7.2.3.1 Sample Inspection

— Turtles received for resection should be removed from the canvas or burlap collection bags and inspected carefully to ensure that they have not been compromised in any way (i.e., not properly preserved during shipment). Any specimen deemed unsuitable for further processing and analysis should be discarded and identified on the sample processing record.
7.2.3.2 Sample Weighing

— A wet weight should be determined for each turtle. All samples should be weighed on balances that are properly calibrated and of adequate accuracy and precision to meet program data quality objectives. Balance calibration should be checked at the beginning and end of each weighing session and after every 20 weighings in a weighing session.
Turtles euthanized by freezing should be weighed in clean, tared, noncontaminating containers if they will thaw before the weighing can be completed. Note: Liquid from the thawed whole turtle sample will come not only from the muscle tissue but from the gut and body cavity, which may not be part of the desired edible tissue sample. Consequently, inclusion of this liquid with the sample may result in an overestimate of target analyte and lipid concentrations in the edible tissue homogenate. Nevertheless, it is recommended, as a conservative approach, that all liquid from the thawed whole turtle be kept in the container as part of the sample.
All weights should be recorded to the nearest gram on the sample processing record and/or in the laboratory notebook.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-19Figure 7-5. Sample processing record for a contaminant monitoring program—individual turtle samples.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-20 7.2.3.3 Removal of Edible Tissues

— Edible portions of a turtle should consist only of those tissues that the population of concern might reasonably be expected to eat. Edible tissues should be clearly defined in site-specific sample processing protocols. A brief description of the edible portions used should also be provided on the sample processing record. General procedures for removing edible tissues from a turtle are illustrated in Appendix K.
Resection should be conducted only by or under the supervision of anexperienced fisheries biologist. If gloves are worn, they should be talc- or dustfree and of noncontaminating materials. Prior to resection, hands should be washed with soap and rinsed thoroughly in tap water, followed by distilled water (U.S. EPA, 1991d). Specimens should come into contact with noncontaminating surfaces only. Turtles should be resected on glass or PTFE cutting boards that are cleaned properly between each turtle or on cutting boards covered with heavy duty aluminum foil that is changed between each turtle (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d, 1990e). A turtle is resected by laying it flat on its back and removing the plastron by severing the two bony ridges between the forelimbs and hindlimbs. Care must be taken to avoid contaminating edible tissues with material released from the inadvertent puncture of internal organs.
Ideally, turtles should be resected while ice crystals are still present in the muscle tissue. Thawing of frozen turtles should be kept to a minimum during tissue removal to avoid loss of liquids. A turtle should be thawed only to the point where it becomes possible to make an incision into the flesh (U.S. EPA, 1991d).
Clean, high-quality stainless steel, ceramic, or titanium utensils should be used to remove the muscle tissue and, depending on dietary or culinary practices of the population of concern, some of the other edible tissues from each turtle. The general procedure recommended for resecting turtles is illustrated in Figure 7-6.
Skin on the forelimbs, hindlimbs, neck, and tail should be removed. Claws should be removed from the forelimbs and hindlimbs. Bones still present in the muscle tissue after resection should be removed carefully (U.S. EPA, 1991d) and may be used in age determination (see Section 7.2.3.5).
To control contamination, separate sets of utensils and cutting boards should be used for skinning muscle tissue and resecting other internal tissues from the turtle (e.g., heart, liver, fatty deposits, and eggs). These other tissue types are recommended for inclusion with the muscle tissue as part of the edible tissue sample because it is believed that they are most representative of the edible portions of turtles that are prepared and consumed by sport anglers and subsistence fishers. Alternatively, states may choose to analyze some of these other lipophilic tissues separately. It is the responsibility of each program manager, in consultation with state fisheries experts, to select the tissue sample7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-21 Figure 7-6. Illustration of basic turtle resection procedure.
type most appropriate for each target species based on the dietary customs of local populations of concern.
The edible turtle tissues should be weighed and the weight recorded to the nearest gram on the sample processing record. If the state elects to analyze the heart, liver, fatty deposits, or eggs separately from the muscle tissue, these other tissues should be weighed separately and the weights recorded to the nearest gram in the sample processing record.
If the tissues are to be homogenized immediately, they should be placed in a properly cleaned glass or PTFE homogenization container. If samples are to be analyzed for metals only, plastic homogenization containers may be used. To facilitate homogenization, it may be necessary or desirable to c hop each of the large pieces of muscle tissue into smaller pieces using a titanium or stainless steel knife prior to placement in the homogenization container.
If the tissues are to be homogenized later, they should be wrapped in heavy duty aluminum foil and labeled with the sample identification number, the sample type (e.g., "M" for muscle, "E" for eggs, or "FD" for fatty deposits), the weight (g), and the date of resection. The individual muscle tissue samples from each turtle should be packaged together and given an individual sample identification number. The date of resection should be recorded and the sample should be stored at  -20 C until homogenization. Note : State staff may determine that the most appropriate sample type is muscle tissue only, with internal organ tissues analyzed separately (liver, heart, fatty deposits, or eggs). Alternatively, state staff may determine that the most appropriate sample type is muscle tissue with several other internal organs included as the turtle tissue sample. This latter7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-22 sample type typically will provide a more conservative estimate of contaminant residues, particularly with respect to lipophilic target analytes (e.g., PCBs, dioxins, and organochlorine pesticides).
7.2.3.4 Sex Determination (Optional)

— Turtle sex should be determined during resection if it has not already been determined in the field. Once the plastron is removed, the ovaries or testes can be observed posterior and dorsal to the liver. Each ovary is a large egg-filled sac containing yellow spherical eggs in various stages of development (Ashley, 1962) (see Appendix K). Each testes is a spherical organ, yellowish in color, attached to the ventral side of each kidney. The sex of each turtle should be verified and recorded on the sample processing form.
7.2.3.5 Age Determination (Optional)

— Age provides a good indication of the duration of exposure to pollutants (Versar, 1982). Several methods have been developed for estimating the age of turtles (Castanet, 1994; Frazer et al., 1993; Gibbons, 1976). Two methods are appropriate for use in contaminant monitoring programs where small numbers of animals of a particular species are to be collected and where the animals must be sacrificed for tissue residue analysis. These methods include (1) the use of external annuli (scute growth marks) on the plastron and (2) the use of growth rings on the bones.
The surface of epidermal keratinous scutes on the plastron of turtle shells develops successive persistent grooves or growth lines during periods of slow or arrested growth (Zangerl, 1969). Because these growth rings are fairly obvious, they have been used extensively for estimating age in various turtle species (Cagle, 1946, 1948, 1950; Gibbons, 1968; Legler, 1960; Sexton, 1959). This technique is particularly useful for younger turtles where the major growth rings are more definitive and clear cut than in older indivi duals (Gi bbons, 1976). However, a useful extension of the external annuli method is presented by Sexton (1959) showing that age estimates can be made for adults on which all annuli are not visible. This method involves visually examining the plastron of the turtle during the resection or tagging the plastron with the sample identification number of the turtle and retaining it for later analysis.
The use of bone rings is the second method that may be used to estimate age in turtles (Enlow and Brown, 1969; Peabody, 1961). Unlike the previous visual method, this method requires that the bones of the turtle be removed during resection and retained for later analysis. The growth rings appear at the surface or inside primary compacta of bone tissues. There are two primary methods for observing growth marks: either directly at the surface of the bone as in flat bones using transmitted or reflected light or inside the long bones using thin sections (Castanet, 1994; Dobie, 1971; Galbraith and Brooks, 1987; Hammer, 1969; Gibbons, 1976; Mattox, 1935; Pea body, 1961). The met hods of preparation of7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-23 whole bones and histological sections of fresh material for growth mark determinations are now routinely performed. Details of these methods can be found in Castanet (1974 and 1987), Castanet et al. (1993), and Zug et al. (1986). State staff interested in using either of these methods for age determination of turtles should read the review articles by Castanet (1994) and Gibbons (1976) for discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and the associated literature cited in these articles on turtle species of particular interest within their jurisdictions.
7.2.3.6 Preparation of Individual Homogenates

— To ensure even distribution of contaminants throughout tissue samples and to facilitate extraction and digestion of samples, the edible tissues from individual turtles must be ground and homogenized prior to analysis. The various tissues from an individual turtle may be ground and homogenized separately, or combined, depending on the sampling program ’ s definition of edible tissues.
Turtle tissues should be ground and homogenized using an automatic grinder or high-speed blender or homogenizer. Large pieces of muscle or organ tissue (e.g., liver or fatty deposits) may be cut into 2.5-cm cubes with high-quality stainless steel or titanium knives or with a food service band saw prior to homogenization. Parts of the blender or homogenizer used to grind the tissue (i.e., blades, probes) should be made of tantalum or titanium rather than stainless steel. Stainless steel blades and/or probes have been found to be a potential source of nickel and chromium contamination (due to abrasion at high speeds) and should be avoided.
Grinding and homogenization of tissue is easier when it is partially frozen (Stober, 1991). Chilling the grinder/blender briefly with a few chips of dry ice will also help keep the tissue from sticking to it (Smith, 1985).
The tissue sample should be ground until it appears to be homogeneous. The ground sample should then be divided into quarters, opposite quarters mixed together by hand, and the two halves mixed together. The grinding, quartering, and hand-mixing steps should be repeated at least two more times. If chunks of tissue are present at this point, the grinding and homogenization should be repeated. No chunks of tissue should remain because these may not be extracted or digested efficiently and could bias the analytical results. This is particularly true when lipophilic tissues (e.g., fatty deposits, liver, or eggs) are not completely homogenized throughout the sample. Portions of the tissue sample that retain unhomogenized portions of tissues may exhibit higher or lower residues of target analytes than properly homogenized samples.
If the sample is to be analyzed for metals only, the ground tissue may be mixed by hand in a polyethylene bag (Stober, 1991). The preparation of each individual homogenate should be noted (marked with a check) on the sample processing record. At this time, individual homogenates may be frozen separately and stored at  -20 C (see Table 7-1).7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-24 The remainder of each individual homogenate should be archived at  -20 C with the designation "Archive" and the expiration date recorded on the sample label. The location of the archived samples should be indicated on the sample processing record under "Notes."
It is essential that the weight of individual homogenate samples is of adequate size to perform all necessary analyses. The recommended sample size of 200 g for screening studies is intended to provide sufficient sample material to (1) analyze for all recommended target analytes (see Table 4-1) at appropriate detection limits; (2) meet minimum QC requirements for the analyses of laboratory duplicate, matrix spike, and matrix spike duplicate samples (see Sections 8.3.3.4 and 8.3.3.5); and (3) allow for reanalysis if the QC control limits are not met or if the sample is lost. However, sample size requirements may vary among laboratories and the analytical methods used. Each program m anager must consult with the analytical laboratory supervisor to determine the actual weights of homogenates required to analyze for all selected target analytes at appropriate detection limits. The total sample weight required for intensive studies may be less than that for screening studies if the number of target analytes is reduced significantly.
7.2.4 Processing Shellfish Samples
Laboratory processing of shellfish to prepare edible tissue composite homogenates for analysis (diagrammed in Figure 7-7) involves

• Inspecting individual shellfish

• Determining the sex of each shellfish (optional)

• Examining each shellfish for morphological abnormalities (optional)

• Removing the edible parts from each shellfish in the composite sample (3 to 50 individuals, depending upon the species)

• Combining the edible parts in an appropriate noncontaminating container

• Weighing the composite sample

• Homogenizing the composite sample

• Preparing aliquots of the composite homogenate for analysis

• Distributing frozen aliquots to one or more analytical laboratories.
Sample aliquotting and shipping are discussed in Section 7.3; all other processing steps are discussed in this section. Shellfish samples should be processed following the general guidelines in Section 7.2.1 to avoid contamination. In7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-25 Log in shellfish samples using COC procedures

Unwrap and inspect individual shellfish

Determine sex (optional); note morphological abnormalities (optional)

Remove edible tissue from each shellfish in composite

Combine edible tissue from individual shellfish in composite in a tared container (g)

Weigh the filled container (g)

Homogenize the composite sample

Divide homogenized sample into quarters, mix opposite quarters and then mix halves (3 times)

Seal and label remaining composite homogenate in appropriate container(s) and archive at ≤ -20 ° C (see Table 7-1

for recommended container materials and holding times). Seal and label (200-g) composite homogenate in appropriate container(s) and store at ≤ -20 ° C until analysis (see Table 7-1 for recommended container materials and holding times).

COC = Chain of custody.

Figure 7-7. Preparation of shellfish edible tissue composite homogenate samples.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-26 particular, it is recommended that separate composite homogenates be prepared for the analysis of metals and organics if resources allow. A sample processing record for shellfish edible tissue composite samples is shown in Figure 7-8.
Shellfish samples should be shipped or brought to the sample processing laboratory either on wet or blue ice (if next-day delivery is assured) or on dry ice (see Section 6.3.3). Shellfish samples arriving on wet ice or blue ice should have edible tissue removed and should be frozen to  -20 C within 48 hours after collection. Shellfish samples that arrive frozen (i.e., on dry ice) at the processing laboratory should be placed in a  -20 C freezer for storage until edible tissue is removed.
7.2.4.1 Sample Inspection

— Individual shellfish should be unwrapped and inspected carefully to ensure that they have not been compromised in any way (i.e., not properly preserved during shipment). Any specimen deemed unsuitable for further processing and analysis should be discarded and identified on the sample processing record.
7.2.4.2 Sex Determination (Optional)

— The determination of sex in shellfish species is impractical if large numbers of individuals of the target species are required for each composite sample.
For bivalves, determination of sex is a time-consuming procedure that must be performed after shucking but prior to removal of the edible tissues. Once the bivalve is shucked, a small amount of gonadal material can be removed using a Pasteur pipette. The gonadal tissue must then be examined under a microscope to identify egg or sperm cells.
For crustaceans, sex also should be determined before removal of the edible tissues. For many species, sex determination can be accomplished by visual inspection. Sexual dimorphism is particularly striking in many species of decapods. In the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus , the female has a broad abdomen suited for retaining the maturing egg mass or sponge, while theabdomen of the male is greatly reduced in width. For shrimp, lobsters, and crayfish, sexual variations in the structure of one or more pair of pl eopods are common. States interested in determining the sex of shellfish should consult taxonomic keys for specific information on each target species.
7.2.4.3 Assessment of Morphological Abnormalities (Optional)

— Assessment of gross morphological abnormalities in shellfish is optional. This assessment may be conducted in the field (see Section 6.3.1.5) or during initial inspection at the processing laboratory prior to removal of the edible tissues. States interested in documenting morphological abnormalities should consult Sinderman and Rosenfield (1967), Rosen (1970), and Murchelano (1982) for7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-27 Figure 7-8. Sample processing record for shellfish contaminant monitoring program — edible tissue composites.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-28 detailed information on various pathological conditions in shellfish and review recommended protocols for pathology studies used in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990c).

7.2.4.4 Removal of Edible Tissue

— Edible portions of shellfish should consist only of those tissues that the population of concern might reasonably be expected to eat. Edible tissues should be clearly defined in site-specific sample processing protocols. A brief description of the edible portions used should also be provi ded on the sample processing record. General procedures for removing edible tissues from a variety of shellfish are illustrated in Appendix L.
Thawing of frozen shellfish samples should be kept to a minimum during tissue removal to avoid loss of liquids. Shellfish should be rinsed well with organics- and metal-free water prior to tissue removal to remove any loose external debris.

Bivalve molluscs (oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops) typically are prepared by severing the adductor muscle, prying open the shell, and removing the soft tissue. The soft tissue includes viscera, meat, and body fluids (Smith, 1985). Byssal threads from mussels should be removed with a knife before shucking and should not be included in the composite sample.

Edible tissue for crabs typically includes all leg and claw meat, back shell meat, and body cavity meat. Internal organs generally are removed. Inclusion of the hepatopancreas should be determined by the eating habits of the local population or subpopulations of concern. If the crab is soft-shelled, the entire crab should be used in the sample. Hard- and soft-shelled crabs must not be combined in the same composite (Smith, 1985).
Typically, shrimp and crayfish are prepared by removing the cephalothorax and then removing the tail meat from the shell. Only the tail meat with the section of intestine passing through the tail muscle is retained for analysis (Smith, 1985). Edible tissue for lobsters typically includes the tail and claw meat. If the tomalley (hepatopancreas) and gonads or ovaries are consumed by local populations of concern, these parts should also be removed and analyzed separately (Duston et al., 1990).
7.2.4.5 Sample Weighing

— Edible tissue from all shellfish in a composite sample (3 to 50 individuals) should be placed in an appropriate preweighed and labeled noncontaminating container. The weight of the empty container (tare weight) should be recorded to the nearest gram on the sample processing record. All fluids accumulated during removal of edible tissue should be retained as part of the sample. As the edible portion of each shellfish is placed in the container, it should be noted on the sample processing record. When the edible tissue has been removed from all shellfish7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-29 in the composite, the container should be reweighed and the weight recorded to the nearest gram on the sample processing record. The total composite weight should be approximately 200 g for screening studies. If the number of target analytes is significantly reduced in intensive studies, a smaller composite homogenate sample may suffice (see Section 7.2.2.9). At this point, the composite sample may be processed for analysis or frozen and stored at  -20 C (see Table 7-1).
7.2.4.6 Preparation of Composite Homogenates

— Composite samples of the edible portions of shellfish should be homogenized in a grinder, blender, or homogenizer that has been cooled briefly with dry ice (Smith, 1985). For metals analysis, tissue may be hom ogenized in 4-oz polyethylene jars (California Department of Fish and Game, 1990) using a Polytron equipped with a titanium generator. If the tissue is to be analyzed for organics only, or if chromium and nickel contamination are not of concern, a commercial food processor with stainless steel blades and glass container may be used. The composite should be homogenized to a paste-like consistency. Larger samples may be cut into 2.5-cm cubes with high-quality stainless steel or titanium knives before grinding. If samples were frozen after dissection, they can be cut without thawing with either a knife-and-mallet or a clean bandsaw. The ground samples should be divided into quarters, opposite quarters mixed together by hand, and the two halves mixed together. The quartering and mixing should be repeated at least two more times until a homogeneous sample is obtained. No chunks should remain in the sample because these may not be extracted or digested efficiently. At this point, the composite homogenates may be processed for analysis or frozen and stored at  -20 C (see Table 7-1).

7.3 SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION
The sample processing laboratory should prepare aliquots of the composite homogenates for analysis, distribute the aliquots to the appropriate laboratory (or laboratories), and archive the remainder of each composite homogenate.
7.3.1 Preparing Sample Aliquots

Note: Because lipid material tends to migrate during freezing, frozen composite homogenates must be thawed and rehomogenized before aliquots are prepared (U.S. EPA, 1991d). Samples may be thawed overnight in an insulated cooler or refrigerator and then homogenized. Recommended aliquot weights and appropriate containers for different types of analyses are shown in Table 7-3. The actual sample size required will depend on the analytical method used and the laboratory performing the analysis. Therefore, the exact sample size required for each type of analysis should be determi ned in consultation with the analytical laboratory supervisor.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-30 Table 7-3. Recommended Sample Aliquot Weights and Containers for Various Analyses Analysis Aliquot weight (g) Shipping/storage container

Metals 1-5 Polystyrene, borosilicate glass, or PTFE jar with PTFE-lined lid Organics 20-50 Glass or PTFE jar with PTFE-lined lid
Dioxins/furans 20-50 Glass or PTFE jar with PTFE-lined lid
PTFE = Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon).
The exact quantity of tissue required for each digestion or extraction and analysis should be weighed and placed in an appropriate container that has been labeled with the aliquot identification number, sample weight (to the nearest 0.1 g), and the date aliquots were pr epared (Stober, 1991). The analytical laboratory can then recover the entire sample, including any liquid from thawing, by rinsing the container directly into the digestion or extraction vessel with the appropriate solvent. It is also the responsibility of the processing laboratory to provide a sufficient number of aliquots for laboratory duplicates, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates so that the QC requirements of the program can be met (see Sections 8.3.3.4 and 8.3.3.5), and to provide extra aliquots to allow for reanalysis if the sample is lost or if QC control limits are not met.
It is essential that accurate records be maintained when aliquots are prepared for analysis. Use of a carefully designed form is recommended to ensure that all the necessary information is recorded. An example of a sample aliquot record is shown in Figure 7-9. The composite sample identification number should be assigned to the composite sample at the time of collection (see Section 6.2.3.1) and carried through sample processing (plus "F1," "F2," or "C" if the composite homogenate is comprised of individual or combined fillets). The aliquot identification number should indicate the analyte class (e.g., MT for metals, OR for organics, DX for dioxins) and the sample type (e.g., R for routine sample; RS or a routine sample that is split for analysis by a second laboratory; MS1 and MS2 for sample pairs, one of which will be prepared as a matrix spike). For example, the aliquot identification number may be WWWWW-XX-YY-ZZZ, where WWWWW is a 5-digit sample composite identification number, XX indicates individual (F1 or F2) or combined (C) fillets, YY is the analyte code, and ZZZ is the sample type.
Blind laboratory duplicates should be introduced by preparing two separate aliquots of the same composite homogenate and labeling one aliquot with a "dummy" composite sample identification. However, the analyst who prepares the laboratory duplicates must be careful to assign a "dummy" identification number that has not been used for an actual sample and to indicate clearly on the7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-31Figure 7-9. Example of a fish and shellfish monitoring program sample aliquot record.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-32 processing records that the samples are blind laboratory duplicates. The analytical laboratory should not receive this information.
When the appropriate number of aliquots of a composite sample have been prepared for all analyses to be performed on that sample, the remainder of the composite sample should be labeled with "ARCHIVE" and the expiration date and placed in a secure location at  -20 C in the sample processing laboratory. The location of the archived samples should be indicated on the sample aliquot record. Unless analyses are to be performed immediately by the sample processing laboratory, aliquots for sample analysis should be frozen at  -20 C before they are transferred or shipped to the appropriate analytical laboratory.
7.3.2 Sample Transfer
The frozen aliquots should be transferred on dry ice to the analytical laboratory (or laboratories) accompanied by a sample transfer record such as the one shown in Figure 7-10. Further details on federal regulations for shipping biological specimens in dry ice are given in Section 6.3.3.2. The sample transfer record may include a section that serves as the analytical laboratory COC record. The COC record must be signed each time the samples change hands for preparation and analysis.7. LABORATORY PROCEDURES I

— SAMPLE HANDLING

7-33 Date _____ _____ _____ Time ___:___ (24-h clock) YYYY MM DD

Released by: (name) At: (location)

Shipment Method Shipment Destination

Date _____ _____ _____ Time ___:___ (24-h clock) YYYY MM DD

Released by: (name) At: (location)

Comments

Study Type:  Screening

—Analyze for:  Trace metals  Organics  Lipid

Intensive Phase 1  Phase II 

—Analyze for (specify) Sample IDs:

Laboratory Chain of Custody Relinquished by Received by Purpose Location

Figure 7-10. Example of a fish and shellfish monitoring program sample transfer record.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II — SAMPLE ANALYSES**

8-1 

## SECTION 8

**LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 
Sample analyses may be conducted by one or more state or private contract laboratories. Because of the toxicity of dioxins/furans and the difficulty and cost of these analyses, relatively few laboratories currently have the capability of performing them. Table 8-1 lists contract laboratories experienced in dioxin/furan analyses. This list is provided for information purposes only and is not an endorsement of specific laboratories.

**8.1 RECOMMENDED ANALYTES**
**8.1.1 Target Analytes**
All recommended target analytes listed in Table 4-1 should be included in screening studies unless reliable historic tissue, sediment, or pollutant source data indicate that an analyte is not present at a level of concern for human health. Additional target analytes should be included in screening studies if states have site-specific information (e.g., historic tissue or sediment data, discharge monitoring reports from municipal and industrial sources) that these contaminants may be present at levels of concern for human health.
Intensive studies should include only those target analytes found to exceed screening values in screening studies (see Section 5.2).
**8.1.2 Lipid**
A lipid analysis should also be performed and reported (as percent lipid by wet weight) for each composite tissue sample in both screening and intensive studies. This measurement is necessary to ensure that gel permeation chromatography columns are not overloaded when used to clean up tissue extracts prior to analysis of organic target analytes. In addition, because bioconcentration of nonpolar organic compounds is dependent upon lipid content (i.e., the higher the lipid content of the individual organism, the higher the residue in the organism), lipid analysis is often considered essential by users of fish and shellfish monitoring data. Consequently, it is important that lipid data are obtained for eventual inclusion in a national database of fish and shellfish contaminant data.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-2 **Table 8-1. Contract Laboratories Conducting Dioxin/Furan Analyses In Fish and Shellfish Tissues**  **a**

Alta Analytical Laboratory b 5070 Robert J. Matthews Parkway, Suite 2 Eldorado Hills, CA 95762 916/933-1640 FAX: 916/933-0940 Bill Luksemburg

Battelle-Columbus Laboratories b 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 614/424-7379 Karen Riggs

Midwest Research Institute b 425 Volker Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64110 816/753-7600, ext. 1160/1557 FAX: 816/753-8240 John Stanley/Tom Sack e-mail: JStanley@mriresearch.org tsack@mriresearch.org
New York State Department of Health b Wadsworth Center Empire State Plaza P.O. Box 509 Albany, NY 12201-0509 518/473-3378 FAX: 518/473-2895 Patrick O’Keefe
Pacific Analytical, Inc. b 6349 Paseo Del Argo Carlsbad, CA 92009 760/438-3100 FAX: 760/931-9479 Bruce Colby Axys Analytical Services b P.O. Box 2219 2045 Mills Road Sidney, BC V8L 3 Canada 250/656-0881; Toll Free 1-888-373-0881 Coreen Hamilton/Dale Hover/Laurie Phillips Pace Analytical Services b 7726 Moller Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 317/875-5894 FAX: 317/872-6189 Mick Mayse
Triangle Laboratories b Alston Technical Park 801 Capitola Drive Durham, NC 27713 919/544-5729 FAX: 919/544-5491 Phil Albro Wellington Environmental Consultants b 398 Laird Road Guelph, Ontario N1G 3X7 Canada 519/822-2436 Judy Sparling/Brock Chittin/Colleen Tashiro Wright State University b 175 Brehm Laboratory 3640 Colonel Glen Highway Dayton, OH 45435 937/775-2202 FAX: 937/775-3122 Thomas Tiernan/Garrett Van Ness

Quanterra Environmental Services Knoxville Laboratory 5815 Middlebrook Pike Knoxville, TN 37921 423/588-6401 FAX: 423/584-4315 David Thal/Tom Yoder

a This list should not be construed as an endorsement by EPA of these laboratories, but is

provided for information purposes only. b Laboratory participating in Method 1613 interlaboratory (round-robin) dioxin study (May 1991).**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-3 **Note:** Because the concentrations of contaminants, particularly nonpolar organics, are often correlated with the percentage of lipid in a tissue sample, contaminant data are often normalized to the lipid concentration before statistical analyses are performed. This procedure can, in some instances, improve the power of the statistical tests. States wishing to examine the relationship between contaminant concentrations and percentage of lipid should refer to H ebert and Keenleyside (1995) for a discussion of the possible statistical approaches.

**8.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS**
This section provides guidance on selecting methods for analysis of recommended target analytes. Analytical methods should incl ude appropriate procedures for sample preparation (i.e., for digestion of samples to be analyzed for metals and for extraction and extract cleanup of samples to be analyzed for organics).
**8.2.1 Lipid Method**
It is recommended that a gravimetic method be used for lipid analysis. This method is easy to perform and is commonly used by numerous laboratories, employing various solvent systems such as chloroform/methanol (Bligh and Dyer, 1959), petroleum ether (California Department of Fish and Game, 1990; U.S. FDA, 1990), and dichloromethane (NOAA, 1993a; Schmidt et al., 1985). The results of lipid analyses may vary significantly (i.e., by factors of 2 or 3), however, depending on the solvent system used for lipid extraction (Randall et al., 1991; D. Swackhamer, University of Minesota, personal communication, 1993; D. Murphy, Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Quality Toxics Division, pers onal communication, 1993). Therefore, to ensure consistency of reported results among fish contaminant monitoring programs, it is recommended that dichloromethane be used as the extraction solvent in all lipid analyses.
In addition to the effect of solvent systems on lipid analysis, other factors can also increase the inter- and intralaboratory variation of results if not adequately controlled (Randall et al., 1991). For example, high temperatures have been found to result in decomposition of lipid material and, therefore, should be avoided during extraction. Underestimation of total lipids can also result from denaturing of lipids by solvent contaminants, lipid decomposition from exposure to oxygen or light, and lipid degradation from changes in pH during cleanup. Overestimation of total lipids may occur if a solvent such as alcohol is used, which results in substantial coextraction of nonlipid material. It is essential that these potential sources of error be considered when conducting and evaluating results of lipid analyses.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-4 **8.2.2 Target Analyte Methods**
EPA has published interim procedures for sampling and analysis of priority pollutants in fish tissue (U.S. EPA, 1981); however, official EPA-approved methods are available only for the analysis of low parts-per-billion concentrations of some metals in fish and shellfish tissues (U.S. EPA, 1991g). Because of the lack of official EPA-approved methods for all recommended target analytes, and to allow states and Regions flexibility in developing their analytical programs, specific analytical methods for recommended target analytes in fish and shellfish monitoring programs are not included in this guidance document.

**Note:** A performance-based analytical program is recommended for the analysis of target analytes. This recommendation is based on the assumption that the analytical results produced by different laboratories and/or different methods will be comparable if appropriate QC procedures are implemented within each laboratory and if comparable analytical performance on round-robin comparative analyses of standard reference materials or split sample analyses of field samplescan be demonstrated. This approach is intended to allow states to use costeffective procedures and to encourage the use of new or improved analytical methods without compromising data quality. Performance-based analytical programs currently are used in several fish and shellfish monitoring programs, including the NOAA Status and Trends Program (Battelle, 1989b; Cantillo, 1991; NOAA, 1987), the EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (U.S. EPA, 1991e), and the P uget S ound Estuary Program (1990d, 1990e).
Analytical methods used in fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs should be selected using the following criteria:

• Technical merit

— Methods should be technically sound; they should be specific for the target analytes of concern and based on current, validated analytical techniques that are widely accepted by the scientific community.

• Sensitivity

— Method detection and quantitation limits should be sufficiently low to allow reliable quantitation of the target analytes of concern at or below selected screening values. I deally, the method detection limit (in tissue) should be at least five times lower than the selected SV for a given target analyte (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990e).

• Data quality

— The accuracy and precision should be adequate to ensure that analytical data are of acceptable quality for program objectives.

• Cost-efficiency

— Resource requirements should not be unreasonably high.
A review of current EPA guidance for chemical contaminant monitoring programs and of analytical methods currently used or recommended in several of these programs (as shown in Table 8-2) indicates that a limited number of analytical**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-5 **Table 8-2. Current References for Analytical Methods for Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish Tissues** 

• Analytical Chemistry of PCBs (Erickson, 1991)

• Analytical Methods for Pesticides and Plant Growth Regulators, Vol. 11 (Zweig and Sherma, 1980)

• Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the Determination of Mercury in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1989a)

• Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the Determination of Xenobiotic Chemical Contaminants in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1989c)

• Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the Determination of PCDD/PCDF in Fish (U.S. EPA, 1989b)

• Arsenic Speciation by Coupling High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (Demesmay et al., 1994)

• Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Water (U.S. EPA, 1991a).

• Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 4. Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority Pollutants and 301(h) Pesticides in Tissues from Marine and Estuarine Organisms (U.S. EPA, 1986a)

• Determination of Arsenic Species by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography - Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (Beauchemin et al., 1989)

• Determination of Arsenic Species in Fish by Directly Coupled High-Performance Liquid ChromatographyInductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (Branch et al., 1994)

• The quantitation of butyltin and cyclohexyltin compounds in the marine environment of British Columbia. Appl. Organometal. Chem. 4:581-590 (Cullen et al., 1990)

• Determination of Butyltin, Methyltin and Tetraalkyltin in Marine Food Products with Gas ChromatographyAtomic Absorption Spectrometry (Forsyth and Cleroux, 1991)

• Determination of Tributyltin Contamination in Tissues by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography-Flame Photometric Detection with Confirmation by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (Wade et al., 1988)

• Determination of Tributyltin in Tissues and Sediments by Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (Stephenson and Smith, 1988)

• Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Near Coastal Virginian Province Quality Assurance Project Plan (Draft) (U.S. EPA, 1991e)

• Guidelines for Studies of Contaminants in Biological Tissues for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (Crawford and Luoma, 1993)

• Interim Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Priority Pollutants in Sediments and Fish Tissue (U.S. EPA, 1981)

• Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan (California Department of Fish and Game, 1990)

• Methods for Organic Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater (40 CFR 136, Appendix A).

• Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (U.S. EPA, 1979b)

• Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples (U.S. EPA, 1991g)

• Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (Williams, 1984)

• Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM Vols. I and II) (U.S. FDA, 1990)

• Puget Sound Estuary Program Plan (1990d, 1990e)

• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for 301(h) Monitoring Programs: Guidance on Field and Laboratory Methods (U.S. EPA, 1987e) (continued)**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-6 **Table 8-2 (continued)**

• Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-92. Volume II. Comprehensive Descriptions of Complementary Measurements (NOAA, 1993a)

• Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-92. Volume III. Comprehensive Descriptions of Elemental Analytical Methods (NOAA, 1993b)

• Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-92. Volume IV. Comprehensive Descriptions of Trace Organic Analytical Methods (NOAA, 1993c)

• Separation of Seven Arsenic Compounds by High-performance Liquid Chromatography with On-line Detection by Hydrogen-Argon Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (Hansen et al., 1992)

• Speciation of Selenium and Arsenic in Natural Waters and Sediments by Hydride Generation Followed by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (Crecelius et al., 1986)

• Standard Analytical Procedures of the NOAA National Analytical Facility (Krahn et al., 1988; MacLeod et al., 1985)

• Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Greenburg et al., 1992)

• Test Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1982)

• Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) (U.S. EPA, 1986d)

• U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis (U.S. EPA, 1991b)

• U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organic Analysis (U.S. EPA, 1991c)

• U.S. EPA Method 1613B: Tetra- through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS (U.S. EPA, 1995b)

• U.S. EPA Method 1625: Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/MS (40 CFR 136, Appendix A)

• U.S. EPA Method 1631: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry (U.S. EPA, 1995c)

• U.S. EPA Method 1632: Determination of Inorganic Arsenic in Water by Hydride Generation Flame Atomic Absorption (U.S. EPA, 1995d)

• U.S. EPA Method 1637: Determination of Trace Elements in Ambient Waters by Chelation Preconcentration with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (U.S. EPA, 1995e)

• U.S. EPA Method 1638: Determination of Trace Elements in Ambient Waters by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (U.S. EPA, 1995f)

• U.S. EPA Method 1639: Determination of Trace Elements in Ambient Waters by Stabilized Temperature Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (U.S. EPA, 1995g)

• U.S. EPA Method 625: Base/Neutrals and Acids by GC/MS (40 CFR 136, Appendix A).

• U.S. EPA Method 8290: Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by High Resolution Gas Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) (U.S. EPA, 1990b)

• U.S. EPA Method 1668: Draft Method 1668 Toxic Polychlorinated Biphenols by Isotope Dilution High Gas Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (U.S. EPA, 1997a)**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-7 techniques are most commonly used for the determination of the recommended target analytes. These techniques are listed in Table 8-3. As shown in Table 8-4, analytical methods employing these techniques have typically achievable detection and/or quantitation limits that are well below the recommended SVs for most target analytes, with the possible exception of dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, toxaphene, PCBs, and dioxins/furans. Recomm ended proc edures for determining method detection and quantitation limits are given in Section 8.3.3.3.
If lower SVs are used in a study (e.g., for susceptible populations), it is the responsibility of program managers to ensure that the detection and quantitation limits of the analytical methods are sufficiently low to allow reliable quantitation of target analytes at or below these SVs. If analytical methodology is not sensitive enough to reliably quantitate target analytes at or below selected SVs (e.g., dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, toxaphene, PCBs, dioxins/furans), program managers must determine appropriate fish consumption guidance based on lowest detectable concentrations or provide justification for adjusting SVs to values at or above achievable method detection limits. It should be emphasized that when SVs are below detection limits, the failure to detect a target analyte cannot be assumed to mean that there is no cause for concern for human health effects.
The analytical techniques identified in Table 8-3 are recommended for use in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs. However, alternative techniques may be used if acceptable detection limits, accuracy, and precision can be demonstrated. **Note:** Neither rotenone, the most widely used piscicide in the United States, nor its biotransformation products (e.g., rotenolone, 6 ’ ,7 ’

- dihydro-6 ’ ,7 ’ -dihydroxyrotenone, 6 ’ ,7 ’ -dihydro-6 ’ ,7 ’ -dihydroxyrotenolone) would be expected to interfere with the analyses of organic target analytes using the recommended gas chromatographic methods of analysis. Furthermore, rotenone has a relatively short half-life in water (3.7, 1.3, and 5.2 days for spring, summer,and fall treatments, respectively) (Dawson et al., 1991) and does not bioaccumulate significantly in fish (bioconcentration factor= 26 in fish carcass) (Gingerich and Rach, 1985), so that tissue residues should not be significant.
Laboratories should select analytical methods for routine analyses of target analytes that are most appropriate for their programs based on available resources, experience, program objectives, and data quality r equirements. A recent evaluation of current methods for the analyses of organic and trace metal target analytes in fish tissue provides useful guidance on method selection, validation, and data reporting procedures (Capuzzo et al., 1990).
The references in Table 8-2 should be consulted in selecting appropriate analytical methods. **Note:** Because many laboratories may have limited experience in determining inorganic arsenic, a widely accepted method for this analysis is included in Appendix H.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-8 **Table 8-3. Recommended Analytical Techniques for Target Analytes**
**Target analyte Analytical technique** 
**Metals**

Arsenic (inorganic) HAA, or HPLC with ICP-MS
Cadmium GFAA or ICP a Mercury CVAA Selenium GFAA, ICP, or HAA a,b Tributyltin GFAA or GC/FPD c **Organics**

PAHs GC/MS or HRGC/HRMS d
PCBs
Total Aroclors GC/ECD e,f,g,h Non-ortho coplanar PCBs HRGC/HRMS i Other cogeners/homologs HRGC/LRMS Organochlorine pesticides GC/ECD f,g Organophosphate pesticides GC/MS, GC/FPD, or GC/NPD j Chlorophenoxy herbicides GC/ECD f,g
Dioxins/dibenzofurans HRGC/HRMS k,l

CVAA = Cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry. GC/ECD = Gas chromatography/electron capture detection. GC/FPD = Gas chromatography/flame photometric detection. GC/MS = Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. GC/NPD = Gas chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus detection. GFAA = Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry. HAA = Hydride generation atomic absorption spectrophotometry. HPLC = High-performance liquid chromatography. HRGC/HRMS = High-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry. ICP = Inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry. ICP-MS = Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. LRMS = Low resolution mass spectrometry. PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls.

a Atomic absorption methods require a separate determination for each element, which increases the time and cost relative

to the broad-scan ICP method. However, GFAA detection limits are typically more than an order of magnitude lower than those achieved with ICP. b Use of HAA can lower detection limits for selenium by a factor of 10-100 (Crecelius, 1978; Skoog, 1985).

c GC/FDP is specific for tributyltin and the most widely accepted analytical method. GFAA is less expensive (see Table 8-5)

but is not specific for tributyltin. Depending on the extraction scheme, mono-, di-, and tetrabutyltin and other alkyltins may be included in the analysis. Contamination of samples with tin may also be a potential problem, resulting in false positives (E. Crecelius, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA, personal communication, 1999). d GC/MS is also recommended for base/neutral organic target analytes (except organochlorine pesticides and PCBs) that

may be included in a study. Detection limits of less than 1 ppb can be achieved for PAHs using HRGC/HRMS. It is recommended that, in both screening and intensive studies, tissue samples be analyzed for benzo[ a ]pyrene and 14 other PAHs and that the relative potencies given for these PAHs (Nesbit and LaGoy, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1993c) be used to calculate PEC for each sample for comparison with the recommended SV for benzo[ a ]pyrene (see Section 5.3.2.4).

e Analysis of total PCBs, as the sum of PCB congeners or sum of Aroclors, is recommended for conducting human health

risk assessments for PCBs. A standard method for Aroclor analyses is available (EPA Method 608). EPA is currently testing a draft method (1668) for PCB congener analysis; however, it has not been finalized.
(continued)**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-9 **Table 8-3 (continued)**

f GC/ECD does not provide definitive compound identification, and false positives due to interferences are commonly r eported.

Confirmation by an alternative GC column phase (with ECD), or by GC/MS with selected ion monitoring, is required for positive identification of PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and chlorophenoxy herbicides.
g GC/MS with selected ion monitoring may be used for quantitative analyses of these compounds if acceptable detection limits can

be achieved. h PCB congener analysis using capillary GC columns is recommended (NOAA, 1989b; Dunn et al., 1984; Schwartz et al., 1984; Mullin

et al., 1984; Stalling et al., 1987). An enrichment step, employing an activated carbon column, may also be required to separa te and quantify coeluting congeners or congeners present at very low concentrations (Smith, 1981; Schwartz et al., 1993).
i Includes PCBs -77, -81, -126 and -169. j Some of the chlorinated organophosphate pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos) may be analyzed by GC/ECD (USGS, 1987).
k The analysis of the 17 2,3,7,8-substituted congeners of tetra- thr ough octa-chlorinated di benzo- p -dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans

(PCDFs) using isotope dilution is recommended.
l Because of the toxicity of dioxins/furans and the difficulty and cost of these analyses, relatively few laboratories currently have the

capability of performing these analyses. Contract laboratories experienced in conducting dioxin/furan analyses are listed in T able 8-1.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-10 **Table 8-4. Range of Detection and Quantitation Limits of Current Analytical Methods for Recommended Target Analytes**  **a**

**Target analyte Recreational**  **SV Subsistence**  **SV b**  **Range of detection limits**  **Range of quantitation**  **limits Metals**  Arsenic (inorganic) Cadmium 26 ppb 4,000 ppb 3.27 ppb 491 ppb 5-50 ppb c ; 50-100 ppb d 5-46 ppb e , 400 ppb f 5-25 ppb 5-500 ppb Mercury Selenium 400 ppb 20,000 ppb 49 ppb 2,457 ppb 1.3-100 ppb g 17-150 ppb c ; 20 ppb h , 600 ppb f 2-10 ppb 20-600 ppb Tributyltin 1,200 ppb 147 ppb 2.5 ppb e ; 2-5 ppb i 2-10 ppb **Organochlorine Pesticides j**  Chlordane (total) cis -Chlordane trans -Chlordane cis -Nonachlor trans -Nonachlor Oxychlordane — 114 ppb — 14 ppb 1-5 ppb 1-5 ppb 1-5 ppb 1-7 ppb 1-5 ppb 2-20 ppb j,k 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb DDT (total) 4,4  ́ -DDT 2,4  ́ -DDT 4,4  ́ -DDD 2,4  ́ -DDD 4,4  ́ -DDE 2,4  ́ -DDE 117 ppb 14.4 ppb 0.1-13 ppb 0.1-10 ppb 0.1-10 ppb 0.1-10 ppb 0.1-38 ppb 0.1-10 ppb 2-20 ppb 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb j,k 2-15 ppb Dicofol 1,600 ppb 196 ppb 1-5 ppb 2-10 ppb Dieldrin 2.50 ppb 0.307 ppb 0.1-5 ppb 2-15 ppb Endosulfan (total) Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endrin Heptachlor epoxide Hexachlorobenzene Lindane Mirex Toxaphene 24,000 ppb

1,200 ppb 4.39 ppb 25 ppb 30 ppb 800 ppb 36 ppb 2,949 ppb

147 ppb 0.54 ppb 3.07 ppb 3.78 ppb 98 ppb 4.46 ppb 5-70 ppb 5-10 ppb 5-70 ppb 0.1-15 ppb 0.1-5 ppb 0.1-2 ppb 0.1-5 ppb 0.1-5 ppb 3-100 ppb 10-70 ppb 2-15 ppb 10-70 ppb 2-15 ppb j,k 2-15 ppb j,k 2-15 ppb j,k 2-15 ppb j,k 2-15 ppb j,k 60-153 ppb **Organophosphate Pesticides j**  Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Disulfoton Ethion Terbufos 18,000 ppb 4,200 ppb 240 ppb 3,000 ppb 120 ppb 147 ppb 344 ppb 19 ppb 245 ppb

9 ppb 2-5 ppb 2-5 ppb 2-5 ppb 2-5 ppb 2-5 ppb 2-15 ppb k 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb 2-15 ppb **Chlorophenoxy Herbicides** Oxyfluorfen 546 ppb 679 ppb 10-20 ppb 20-200 ppb **PAHs** l 5.47 ppb 0.67 ppb 1-10 ppt 2-20 ppt **PCBs total** (sum of Aroclors) j Non-ortho coplanar PCBs k Other congeners/ homologues n 20 ppb 2.45 ppb

— (20-62 ppb) m

2-5 ppt 2-5 ppb — (110-170 ppb) m 2-10 ppt 10 ppb **Dioxins/furans k**  **(total)** TCDD/TCDF PeCDD/PeCDF HxCDD/HxCDF HpCDD/HpCDF OCDD/OCDF 0.256 ppt 0.031 ppt 1.0 ppt 0.1 ppt 0.5 ppt 0.5 ppt 0.5 ppt 1.0 ppt 5-10 ppt 0.5 ppt 2.5 ppt 2.5 ppt 2.5 ppt 5 ppt

PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls. SV = Screening value (wet weight).
(continued)**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-11 An additional resource for method selection is the EPA Environmental Monitoring Methods Index System (EMMI), an automated inventory of information on environmentally significant analytes and methods for their analysis (U.S. EPA, 1991f). The EMMI dat abase includes information on more than 4,000 analytes from over 80 regulatory and nonregulatory lists and more than 900 analytical methods in a variety of matrices, including tissue. This searchable database provides a comprehensive cross-reference between analytes and analytical methods with detailed information on each analytical met hod, including sponsoring organization, sample matrix, and estimates of detection limits, accuracy, and precision.
EMMI is available from the EPA Sample Control Center for all EPA personnel and from National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for all other parties. EMMI is also available through the EPA Local Area Network (LAN). **Table 8-4. (continued)**

a Target analyte concentrations are given based on wet weight of fish tissue.
b From Tables 5-2 and 5-3. SVs shown here are for fish consumers using RfDs or CSFs available in the EPA IRIS

(1999) database and assuming a consumption rate (CR) for recreational fishers of 12 g/d and for subsistence fishers of 124 g/d , average adult body weight (BW) = 72 kg, lifetime (70-yr) exposure, and, for carcinogens, a risk level (RL) = 10 -5

. **Note:** Increasing CR, decreasing BW, and/or using an RL <10 -5 will decrease the SV. Program managers must ensure that detection and quantitation limits of analytical methods are sufficient to allow reliable quantitation of target analytes at or below selected SVs. If analytical methodology is not sensitive enough to reliably quantitate target analytes at or below selected SVs (e.g., inorganic arsenic, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, toxaphene, PCBs, dioxins/furans), the program managers must determine appropriate fish consumption guidance based on lowest detectable concentrations or provide justification for adjusting SVs to values at or above achievable method detection or quantitation limits. It should be emphasized that when SVs are below method detection limits, the failure to detect a target analyte cannot be assumed to indicate that there is no cause for concern for human health effects.

c Analysis by hydride generation atomic absorption spectrophotometry (HAA) with preconcentration (E. Crecelius,

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA, personal communication, July 1999).
d Analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS) (E. Crecelius, Battelle Pacific

Northwest Laboratories, Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA, personal communication, July 1999).

e Analysis by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAA). **Note:** This method is not specific for

tributyltin. Depending on the extraction procedure, mono-, di-, and tetrabutyltin may also be included in the analysis. Also, this method does not distinguish between butyltins and other alkyltins (E. Crecelius, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA, personal communication, July 1999).
f Analysis by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrophotometry (ICP).
g Analysis by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry (CVAA).
h Analysis by HAA.
i Analysis by gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (GC/FPD) (E. Crecelius, Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratories, Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, WA, personal communication, July 1999). j Analysis by gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD), except where otherwise noted.
k Analysis by high-resolution GC/high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS).
l Analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Detection limits of less than 1 ppb can be achieved using

high-resolution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS).

m Values in parentheses represent ranges for individual Aroclors.

n Analysis by high-resolution GC/low resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/LRMS).**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-12 The private sector may purchase EMMI Version 2.0 through the:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 USA Phone: (703) 605-6000 Fax: (703) 605-6900 Rush Orders: (800) 553-NTIS Online Orders: http:\\www.ntis.gov
The order number is PB97-5026371NC for a single user, PB97-502645INC for a five-user LAN package, and PB97- 502652INC for an unlimited user LAN pack age. Further information may be obtained by contacting:
EMMI User Support Tech Calls EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Office of Science and Technology (703) 461-2104 Alexandria, VA 22313
Because chemical analysis is frequently one of the most expensive components of a sampling and analysis program, the selection of an analytical method often will be influenced by its cost. In general, analytical costs increase with increased sensitivity (i.e., lower detection limits) and reliability (i.e., accuracy and precision). Analytical costs will also be dependent on the number of samples to be analyzed, the requested turnaround time, the number and type of analytes requested, the level of QC effort, and the amount of support documentation requested (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d). However, differences in protocols, laboratory experience, and pricing policies of laboratories often introduce large variation into analytical costs. Approximate costs per sample for the analysis of target analytes by the recommended analytical techniques are provided in Table 8-5.

**8.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS**
Quality assurance and quality control must be integral parts of each chemical analysis program. The QA process consists of management review and oversight at the planning, implementation, and completion stages of the analytical data collection activity to ensure that data provided are of the quality required. The QC process includes those activities required during data collection to produce the data quality desired and to document the quality of the collected data.
During the planning of a chemical analysis program, QA activities focus on defining data quality criteria and designing a QC system to measure the quality of data being generated. During the implementation of the data collection effort, QA activities ensure that the QC system is functioning effectively and that the**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-13 **Table 8-5. Approximate Range of Costs per Sample for Analysis of Recommended Target Analytes**  **a Target analyte**  **Approximate cost range (1999 $)**

**Metals b**  Arsenic (inorganic) c Cadmium Mercury (total) Selenium Tributyltin d 200 - 400 55 - 60 45 - 60 35 - 60 200 - 400 **Organochlorine pesticides e,f**  **Organophosphate pesticides g**  **Chlorophenoxy herbicides h**  285 - 500 250 - 500 250 - 500
**PAHs i**  250 - 525
**PCBs** Total Aroclors e Non-ortho coplanar PCBs j Other cogeners/homologs k 210 - 500 1,000 - 2,000 800 - 1,000
**Dioxins/furans j**  TCDD/TCDF only TCDD/TCDF through OCDD/OCDF isomers 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxins/furans 600 - 1,000 800 - 1,600 1,000 - 2,000 **Lipid** 30 - 40
OCDD = Octachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin. OCDF = Octachlorodibenzofuran. PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls. TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin. TCDF = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran.

a These costs include sample digestion or extraction and cleanup, but not sample preparation (i.e., resection, grinding, homogenization, compositing). Estimated cost of sample preparation for a composite homogenate of five fish is $200 to $500. b Analysis of inorganic arsenic by hydride generation atomic absorption spectroscopy (HAA) or highperformance liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HPLC-ICP/MS). Analysis of cadmium by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAA). Analysis of selenium by GFAA or HAA. Analysis of mercury by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry (CVAA). Analysis of tributyltin by GFAA or gas chromatography/flame photometric detection (GC/FPD).

c Estimated costs are for total inorganic arsenic. Estimated cost of analysis by HAA is $200. Estimated cost of analysis by HPLC-ICP/MS is $400.
d Estimated cost of analysis by GFAA is $200. Estimated cost of analysis by GC/FPD is $400. **Note:** Analysis by GFAA is not specific for tributyltin. Depending on the extraction procedure, other butyl- and alkyltin species may be detected.

e Analysis by gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD). f Estimated costs are for analysis of all recommended target analyte organochlorine pesticides (see Table 4-1).
g Analysis by GC/FPD or gas chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD). Some of the chlorinated organophosphate pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos) may be analyzed as organochlorine pesticides by GC/ECD (USGS, 1987). h Analysis by GC/ECD. i Costs are for analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) or gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID). Cost for analysis by high-resolution gas chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) is approximately $1,000 per sample. j Analysis by HRGC/HRMS. k Analysis by HRGC/low resolution mass spectrometry (LRMS).**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-14 deficiencies uncovered by the QC system are corrected. After the analytical data are collected, QA activities focus on assessing the quality of data obtained to determine its suitability to support decisions for further monitoring, risk assessments, or issuance of advisories.
The purpose of this section is to describe the general QA and QC requirements for chemical analysis programs.

**8.3.1 QA Plans**
Each laboratory performing chemical analyses in fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs must have an adequate QA program (U.S. EPA, 1984b). The QA program should be documented fully in a QA plan or in a combined Work/QA Project Plan (U.S. EPA, 1980b). (See Appendix I.) Each QA and QC requirement or procedure should be described clearly. Documentation should clearly demonstrate that the QA program meets overall program objectives and data quality requirements. The QA guidelines in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990d, 1990e), the NOAA Status and Trends Program (Battelle, 1989b; Cantillo, 1991; NOAA, 1987), the EPA 301(h) Monitoring Programs (U.S. EPA, 1987e), the EPA EMAP Near Coastal (EMAP-NC) Program (U.S. EPA, 1991e), and the EPA Contract Laboratory (CLP) Program (U.S. EPA, 1991b, 1991c) are recommended as a basis for developing program-specific QA programs. Additional method-specific QC guidance is given in references in Table 8-2.

**8.3.2 Method Documentation**
Methods used routinely for the analyses of contami nants in fish and shellfish tissues must be documented thoroughly, preferably as formal standard operating procedures (U.S. EPA, 1984b). Recommended contents of an analytical SOP are shown in Figure 8-1. Analytical SOPs must be followed exactly as written. A published method may serve as an analytical SOP only if the analysis is performed exactly as described. Any significant deviations from analytical SOPs must be documented in the laboratory records (signed and dated by the responsible person) and noted in the final data report. Adequate evidence must be provided to demonstrate that an SOP deviation did not adversely affect methodperformance (i.e., detection or quantitation limits, accuracy, precision). Otherwise, the effect of the deviation on data quality must be assessed and documented and all suspect data must be identified.
**8.3.3 Minimum QA and QC Requirements for Sample Analyses**
The guidance provided in this section is derived primarily from the protocols developed for the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990d, 1990e). These protocols have also provided the basis for the EPA EMAP-NC QA and QC requirements (U.S. EPA, 1991e). QA and QC recommendations specified in this document are intended to provide a uniform performance standard for all analytical protocols used in state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-15 • Scope and application

• Method performance characteristics (accuracy, precision, method detection and quantitation limits) for each analyte

• Interferences

• Equipment, supplies, and materials

• Sample preservation and handling procedures

• Instrument calibration procedures

• Sample preparation (i.e., extraction, digestion, cleanup) procedures • Sample analysis procedures

• Quality control procedures

• Corrective action procedures

• Data reduction and analysis procedures (with example calculations)

• Recordkeeping procedures (with standard data forms, if applicable)

• Safety procedures and/or cautionary notes

• Disposal procedures

• References **Figure 8-1. Recommended contents of analytical standard operating procedures (SOPs).**

programs and to enable an assessment of the comparability of results generatedby different laboratories and different analytical procedures. These recommendations are intended to represent minimum QA and QC procedures for any given analytical method. Additional method-specific QC procedures should always be followed to ensure overall data quality.
For sample analyses, minimum QA and QC requirements consist of (1) initial demonstration of laboratory capability and (2) routine analyses of appropriate QA and QC samples to demonstrate continued acceptable performance and to document data quality.
Initial demonstration of laboratory capability (prior to analysis of field samples) should include

• Instrument calibration

• Documentation of detection and quantitation limits

• Documentation of accuracy and precision

• Analysis of an accuracy-based performance evaluation sample provided by an external QA program. Ongoing demonstration of acceptable laboratory performance and documentation of data quality should include

• Routine calibration and calibration checks

• Routine assessment of accuracy and precision

• Routine monitoring of interferences and contamination

• Regular assessment of performance through participation in external QA interlaboratory comparison exercises, when available.
The QA and QC requirements for the analyses of target analytes in tissues should be based on specific performance criteria (i.e., warning or control limits) for data quality indicators such as accuracy and precision. **Warning limits** are numerical criteria that serve to alert data reviewers and data users that data quality may be questionable. A laboratory is not required to terminate analyses when a warning limit is exceeded, but the reported data may be qualified during subsequent QA review. **Control limits** are numerical data criteria that, when exceeded, require**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-16 suspension of analyses and specific corrective action by the laboratory before the analyses may resume.
Typically, warning and control limits for accuracy are based on the historical mean recovery plus or minus two or three standard deviation units, respectively. Warning and control limits for precision are typically based on the historical standard deviation or coefficient of variation (or mean relative percent difference for duplicate samples) plus two or three standard deviation units, respectively. Procedures incorporating control charts (ASTM, 1976; Taylor, 1985) and/or tabular presentations of historical data should be in place for routine monitoring of analytical performance. Procedures for corrective action in the event of excursion outside warning and control limits should also be in place.
The results for the various QC samples analyzed with each batch of samples should be reviewed by qualified laboratory personnel immediately following the analysis of each sample batch to determine when warning or control limits have been exceeded. When established control limits are exc eeded, appropriate corrective action should be taken and, if possible, all suspect samples reanalyzed before resuming routine analyses. If reanalyses cannot be performed, all suspect data should be identified clearly. **Note:** For the purposes of this guidance manual, a batch is defined as any group of samples from the same source that is processed at the same time and analyzed during the same analytical run.
Recommended QA and QC samples (with definitions and specifications), frequencies of analyses, control limits, and corrective actions are summarized in Table 8-6.

**Note:** EPA recognizes that resource limitations may prevent some states from fully implementing all recommended QA and QC procedures. Therefore, as additional guidance, the minimum numbers of QA and QC samples recomm ended for routine analyses of target analytes are summarized in Table 8-7. It is the responsibility of each program manager to ensure that the analytical QC program is adequate to meet program data quality objectives for method detection limits, accuracy, precision, and comparability.
Recommended QA and QC procedures and the use of appropriate QA and QC samples are discussed in Sections 8.3.3.2 through 8.3.3.8. Recommended procedures for documenting and reporting analytical and QA and QC data are given in Section 8.4. Because of their importance in assessing data quality and interlaboratory comparability, reference materials are discussed separately in the following section.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-17(continued)**Table 8-6. Recommended Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples Sample type** **(definition; specifications) Objective** **Recommended frequency of analysis** **a Recommended** **control limits b** **Recommended corrective action** **External Calibration Calibration standards** (3-5 standards over the expectedrange of sample target analyteconcentrations, with the lowestconcentration standard at or nearthe MDL; see Section 8.3.3.2.1)Full calibration: Establishrelationship betweeninstrument response andtarget analyteconcentration. Used fororganics analysis byGC/ECD and for metalsanalysis.Instrument/method-dependent; followmanufacturer’s recommendations orprocedures in specific analyticalprotocols. At a minimum, perform a 3-point calibration each time an instrumentis set up for analysis, after each majorequipment change or disruption, andwhen routine calibration check exceedsspecific control limits.Organics: RSD of RFs ofcalibration standards <20%.Metals: %R of all calibrationstandards = 95-105.Determine cause of problem (e.g.,instrument instability or malfunction,contamination, inaccuratepreparation of calibrationstandards) and take appropriatecorrective action. Recalibrate andreanalyze all suspect samples orflag all suspect data.**Internal Standard Calibration Instrument internal** **standards**(e.g., 2,2’-difluorobiphenyl)(see Section 8.3.3.2.1 fordefinition)Full calibration: DetermineRRFs of organic targetanalytes for quantitativeanalysis. Required forinternal calibration ofGC/MS systems. Optionalcalibration technique forGC/ECD.In every calibration standard, sample,and blank analyzed; added to finalsample extract. Internal standardcalibration performed at same frequencyrecommended for external calibration.RSD of RRFs of calibration standards#30%.Determine cause of problem (e.g.,instrument instability or malfunction,contamination, inaccuratepreparation of internal standards orcalibration standards) and takeappropriate corrective action.Recalibrate and reanalyze allsuspect samples or flag all suspectdata.**Calibration Verification Calibration check standards** (minimum of one mid-rangestandard prepared independentlyfrom initial calibration standards;an instrument internal standardmust be added to eachcalibration check standard wheninternal standard calibration isbeing used; see Section8.3.3.2.1)Verify calibration.Organics (GC/MS): After initialcalibration or recalibration. Atbeginning and end of each work shift,and once every 12 h (or every 10-12analyses, whichever is morefrequent).Organics (GC/ECD): After initialcalibration or recalibration. Atbeginning and end of each work shift,and once every 6 h (or every 6samples, whichever is less frequent).Metals: After initial calibration orrecalibration. Every 10 samples orevery 2 h, whichever is more frequent.Organics: Percent differencebetween the average RF (or RRF)from initial calibration and the RF(or RRF) from the calibration check<25%.Mercury: %R = 80-120.Other Metals: %R = 90-110.Determine cause of problem (e.g.,instrument instability or malfunction,contamination, inaccuratepreparation of calibrationstandards) and take appropriatecorrective action. Recalibrate andreanalyze all suspect samples orflag all suspect data.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-18**Table 8-6. (continued) Sample type** **(definition; specifications) Objective** **Recommended frequency of analysis** **a Recommended** **control limits b** **Recommended corrective action** (continued)**Method Detection Limit Determination Spiked matrix samples** (analyte-free tissue samples towhich known amounts of targetanalytes have been added; onespike for each target analyte at 3-5 times the estimated MDL; seeSection 8.3.3.3.1)Establish or confirm MDLfor analyte of interest(Keith, 1991a; Keith et al.,1983).Seven replicate analyses prior to use ofmethod for routine analyses, and afterany significant change to a methodcurrently in use. Reevaluation of MDLannually.Determined by program manager. Redetermine MDL.**Accuracy and Precision Assessment Reference materials** **c**(see Section 8.3.3.1 fordefinitions)(SRMs or CRMs, prepared fromactual contaminated fish orshellfish tissue if possible,covering the range of expectedtarget analyte concentrations.Assess methodperformance (initialmethod validation androutine accuracyassessment).Method validation: As many as requiredto assess accuracy (and precision) ofmethod before routine analysis ofsamples (i.e., when using a method forthe first time or after any methodmodification).Routine accuracy assessment: one(preferably blind) per 20 samples or oneper batch, whichever is more frequent.Organics:Measured value<95% confidence intervals, ifcertified. Otherwise, %R = 70-130.dMetals:%R = 85-115.dOrganics:Measured value<95% confidence intervals, ifcertified. Otherwise, %R = 70-130.dMetals:%R = 85-115.dNADetermine cause of problem (e.g.,inaccurate calibration,contamination), take appropriatecorrective action, and reanalyze allsuspect samples or flag all suspectdata.**Laboratory control samples**(Accuracy-based samplesconsisting of fish or shellfishtissue homogenates spiked withtarget analytes of interest; maybe SRMs or CRMs; sometimesreferred to as QC samples.When available, CRMs arerecommended for routine use aslaboratory control samples; seeAppendix M)Assess methodperformance (initialmethod validation androutine accuracyassessment). Used forinitial accuracyassessment only ifreference materialsprepared from actualcontaminated fish orshellfish are not available.Method validation: As many as requiredto assess accuracy (and precision) ofmethod before routine analysis ofsamples (i.e., when using a method forthe first time or after any methodmodification).Routine accuracy assessment. One per20 samples or one per batch, whicheveris more frequent.Determined by program manager.Organics: %R = 70-130.dMetals: %R = 85-115.dNADetermine cause of problem (e.g.,inaccurate calibration, inaccuratepreparation of control samples),take appropriate corrective action,and reanalyze all suspect samplesor flag all suspect data. Zeropercent recovery requires rejectionof all suspect data.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-19**Table 8-6. (continued) Sample type** **(definition; specifications) Objective** **Recommended frequency of analysis** **a Recommended** **control limits b** **Recommended corrective action** (continued)**Matrix spikes**(composite tissue homogenatesof field samples to which knownamounts of target analytes havebeen added; 0.5 to 5 times theconcentration of the analyte ofinterest or 5 times the MQL)Assess matrix effects andaccuracy (%R) routinely.One per 20 samples or one per batch,whichever is more frequent.Organics:%R$50 with goodprecision.Metals: %R = 75-125.Determine cause of problem (e.g.,incomplete extraction or digestion,contamination), take appropriatecorrective action, and reanalyze allsuspect samples or flag all suspectdata. Zero percent recoveryrequires rejection of all suspectdata.**Matrix spike replicates**(replicate aliquots of matrix spikesamples; 0.5 to 5 times theconcentration of the analyte ofinterest or 5 times the MQL)Assess method precisionroutinely.One duplicate per 20 samples or one perbatch, whichever is more frequent.Organics: A difference of nomore than a factor of 2 amongreplicates (i.e., approximately 50%coefficient of variation).**Note:**Pooling of variances induplicate analyses from differentsample batches is recommendedfor estimating the standarddeviation or coefficient of variationof replicate analyses. Metals:|RPD|#20 for duplicates.Determine cause of problem (e.g.,incomplete extraction or digestion,contamination, instrument instabilityor malfunction), take appropriatecorrective action, and reanalyze allsuspect samples or flag all suspectdata.**Laboratory replicates e** (replicate aliquots of compositetissue homogenates of fieldsamples)Assess method precisionroutinely.One blind duplicate sample per 20samples or one per batch, whichever ismore frequent.Organics: A difference of nomore than a factor of 2 amongreplicates (i.e., approximately 50%coefficient of variation).**Note:**Pooling of variances induplicate analyses from differentsample batches is recommendedfor estimating the standarddeviation or coefficient of variationof replicate analyses.Metals: |RPD|#20 for duplicates.Determine cause of problem (e.g.,composite sample nothomogeneous, instrumentinstability or malfunction), takeappropriate corrective action, andreanalyze all suspect samples orflag all suspect data.**Analytical Replicates**(replicate aliquots of final sampleextract or digestate)Assess analyticalprecision.Duplicate injections for all metalanalyses.fDetermined by program manager.gDetermine cause of problem (e.g.,instrument instability ormalfunction), take appropriatecorrective action, and reanalyzesample.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-20**Table 8-6. (continued) Sample type** **(definition; specifications) Objective** **Recommended frequency of analysis** **a Recommended** **control limits b** **Recommended corrective action** (continued)**Field replicates**(replicate composite tissuesamples)Assess total variability(i.e., population variability,field or samplingvariability, and analyticalmethod variability).Screening studies:**OPTIONAL**; ifprogram resources allow, a minimum ofone blind replicate (i.e., duplicate) foreach primary target species at 10 percentof screening sites.gIntensive studies: Blind replicatesamples for each target species (andsize, age or sex class, if appropriate) ateach sampling site. Number of replicatesdetermined by program manager (seeSection 6.1.2.7).Determined by program manager.gDetermined by program manager.gDetermined by program manager.Determined by program manager.**Contamination Assessment Blanks (field, method,** **processing, bottle, reagent)** (see Section 8.3.3.6 fordefinitions)Assess contaminationfrom equipment, reagents,etc.One field blank per sampling site.One method blank per 20 samples or oneper batch, whichever is more frequent. Atleast one processing blank per study. Atleast one bottle blank per lot or per batchof samples, whichever is more frequent.One reagent blank prior to use of a newbatch of reagent and whenever methodblank exceeds control limits.Concentration of any analyte <MDL orMQL, as determined by programmanager.Determine cause of problem (e.g.,contaminated reagents,equipment), remove sources ofcontamination, and reanalyze allsuspect samples or flag all suspectdata.**Routine Monitoring of Method Performance for Organic Analyses Surrogate spikes** (see Section8.3.3.7.1 for definition)**Prepared from isotopically labeled target analytes** Assess method performance and estimaterecovery of organic targetanalytes analyzed byGC/MS. Determine RRFsof organic target analytesquantitated by isotopedilution techniques.In every calibration standard, sample,and blank analyzed for organics byisotope dilution GC/MS; added tosamples prior to extraction.Determined by program manager. Determine cause of problem (e.g.,incomplete extraction or digestion,contamination, inaccuratepreparation of internal standard),take appropriate corrective action,and reanalyze all suspect samplesor flag all suspect data.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-21**Table 8-6. (continued) Sample type** **(definition; specifications) Objective** **Recommended frequency of analysis** **a Recommended** **control limits b** **Recommended corrective action** (continued)**Prepared from other surrogate compounds** Assess methodperformance and estimatethe recovery of organictarget analytes analyzedby GC/MS or GC/ECD.In every calibration standard, sample,and blank analyzed for organics, unlessisotope dilution technique is used:Semivolatiles:3 for neutral fraction2 for acid fractionVolatiles: 3Pesticides/PCBs: 1Added to samples prior to extraction.Determined by program manageraccording to most recent EPA CLPguidelines.hDetermine cause of problem (e.g.,incomplete extraction or digestion,contamination, inaccuratepreparation of surrogates), takeappropriate corrective action, andreanalyze all suspect samples orflag all suspect data.**External QA Assessment Accuracy-based performance** **evaluation samples**(QA samples from NOAAinterlaboratory comparisonprogram; see Section 8.3.3.8.1)Initial demonstration oflaboratory capability.Ongoing demonstration oflaboratory capability.Once prior to routine analysis of fieldsamples (blind).One exercise (four to six samples) peryear (blind).Organics: %R=70-130.dMetals: %R=85-115.dDetermined by NOAA. Based onconsensus value of all participatinglaboratories.Determine cause of problem andreanalyze sample. Do not beginanalysis of field samples untilperformance evaluation sampleresults are acceptable.Determine cause of problem. Donot continue analysis of fieldsamples until laboratory capabilityis clearly demonstrated.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-22**Table 8-6. (continued) Sample type** **(definition; specifications) Objective** **Recommended frequency of analysis** **a Recommended** **control limits b** **Recommended corrective action** (continued)**Split samples**(laboratory replicates analyzedby different laboratories; seeSection 8.3.3.8.2)Assess interlaboratorycomparability.5-10% of composite homogenates splitbetween states and/or Regions thatroutinely share monitoring results, or asdetermined by program managers.gDetermined by program managers. Review sampling and analyticalmethods. Identify sources ofnoncomparability. Standardize andvalidate methods to documentcomparability.CLP = Contract laboratory program.CRM = Certified reference material (see Section8.3.3.1).GC/ECD = Gas chromatography/electron capturedetection.GC/MS = Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.MDL = Method detection limit (see Section8.3.3.3.1).MQL = Method quantitation limit (see Section8.3.3.3.2).NA = Not applicable.NOAA = National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration.PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls.QA = Quality assurance.%R = Percent recovery (see Sections 8.3.3.4 and8.3.3.7.1).RF = Response factor (see Section 8.3.3.2.1).RPD = Relative percent difference (see Section8.3.3.5).RRF = Relative response factor (see Section8.3.3.2.1).RSD = Relative standard deviation (see Section8.3.3.5).SRM = Standard reference material (see Section8.3.3.1).aRecommended frequencies are based primarily on recommendations in U.S. EPA (1986d, 1987e, 1989c, 1991b, 1991c), Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990d, 1990e), andBattelle (1989b).bFrom Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990d, 1990e) action limits, except where otherwise noted.**Note:**Individual programs may require more stringent control limits. It is theresponsibility of each program manager to set control limits that will ensure that the measurement data meet program data quality objectives.cAs available (see Table 8-8 and Appendix M).dFrom U.S.EPA (1991e).eSometimes referred to as analytical replicates (e.g., in Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d).fFrom U.S. EPA (1987e).gRecommended by EPA for this guidance document.hFrom U.S. EPA (1991b, 1991c).**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-23 **Table 8-7. Minimum Recommended QA and QC Samples for Routine Analysis of Target Analytes**  **a**

**Sample Type Target analyte**  **Metals Organics** Accuracy-based performance evaluation sample b Once prior to routine analysis of field samples,

plus one exercise (four to six samples) per year. Once prior to routine analysis of field samples, plus one exercise (four to

six samples) per year.
Method blank 1 1

Laboratory duplicate 1 1

Matrix spike/matrix spike replicate 1 1

Laboratory control sample (SRM or CRM, if available) 1 1

Calibration check standard 2 c 2 c

Surrogate spike (isotopically labeled target analyte or other surrogate compound added prior to extraction) NA Each sample

Instrument (injection) internal standard; added prior to injection NA Each calibration or calibration check standard and each sample or blank analyzed by GC/MS d

CRM = Certified reference material (see Section 8.3.3.1). GC/MS = Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy. NA = Not applicable. QA = Quality assurance. QC = Quality control. SRM = Standard reference material (see Section 8.3.3.1).

a Unless otherwise specified, the number given is the recommended number of QC samples per 20 samples or

per batch, whichever is more frequent. Additional method-specific QC requirements should always be followed provided these minimum requirements have been met.
b QA samples from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration interlaboratory comparison program (see

Section 8.3.3.8.1).

c One every 10 samples (plus one at beginning and end of each analytical run).

d Optional for analyses by GC/electron capture detection (ECD), GC/flame ionization detection (FID), or GC

with other nonspecific detectors.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-24 **8.3.3.1 Reference Materials**

**—** The appropriate use of reference materials is an essential part of good QA and QC practices for analytical chemistry. The following definitions of reference materials (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d) are used in this guidance document:

• A **reference material** is any material or substance of which one or more

properties have been sufficiently well established to allow its use for instrument calibration, method evaluation, or characterization of other materials.

• A **certified reference material (CRM)**  is a reference material of which the

value(s) of one or more properties has (have) been certified by a variety of technically valid procedures. CRMs are accompanied by or traceable to a certificate or other documentation that is issued by the certifying organization (e.g., U.S. EPA, NIST, National Research Council of Canada [NRCC]).

• A **standard reference material (SRM)** is a CRM issued by the NIST.
Reference materials may be used to (1) provide information on method accuracy and, when analyzed in replicate, on precision, and (2) obtain estimates of intermethod and/or interlaboratory comparability. An excellent discussion of the use of reference materials in QA and QC procedures is given in Taylor (1985). The following general guidelines should be followed to ensure proper use of reference materials (NOAA, 1992):

• When used to assess the accuracy of an analytical method, the matrix of the reference material should be as similar as possible to that of the samples of interest. If reference materials in matrices other than fish or shellfish tissue are used, possible matrix effects should be addressed in the final data analysis or interpretation.

• Concentrations of reference materials should cover the range of possible concentrations in the samples of interest. **Note:** Because of a lack of lowand high-concentration reference materials for most analytes in fish and shellfish tissue matrices, potential problems at low or high concentrations often cannot be documented.

• Reference materials should be analyzed prior to beginning the analyses of field samples to assess laboratory capability and regularly thereafter to detect and document any changes in laboratory performance over time. Appropriate corrective action should be taken whenever changes are observed outside specified performance limits (e.g., accuracy, precision).

• If possible, reference material samples should be introduced into the sample stream as double blinds, that is, with identity and concentration unknown to the analyst. However, because of the limited number of certified fish and**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-25 shellfish tissue reference materials available, the results of analyses of these materials may be biased by an analyst ’ s increasing ability to recognize these materials with increased use.

• Results of reference material analyses are essential to assess interlaboratory or intermethod comparability. However, the results of sample analyses should not be corrected based on percent recoveries of reference materials. Final reported results should include both uncorrected sample results and percent recoveries of reference materials.
Sources of reference materials for the analysis of priority pollutants and selected related compounds in fish and shellfish tissues are given in Appendix M. Available marine or estuarine tissue reference materials that may be appropriate for use by analytical laboratories in fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs are given in Table 8-8.

**8.3.3.2 Calibration and Calibration Checks**

**—** General guidelines for initial calibration and routine calibration checks are provided in this section. Method-specific calibration procedures are included in the references in Table 8-2. It is the responsibility of each program manager to ensure that proper calibration procedures are developed and followed for each analytical method to ensure the accuracy of the measurement data.
All analytical instruments and equipment should be maintained and calibrated properly to ensure optimum operating conditions throughout a measurement program. Calibration and maintenance procedures should be performed according to SOPs based on the manufacturers ’ specifications and the requirements of specific analytical procedures. Calibration procedures must include provisions for documenting calibration fr equencies, c onditions, standards, and results to describe adequately the calibration history of each measurement system. Calibration records should be inspected regularly to ensure that these procedures are being performed at the required frequency and according to established SOPs. Any deficiencies in the records or deviations from established procedures should be documented and appropriate corrective action taken.
Calibration standards of known and documented accuracy must be used to ensure the accuracy of the analytical data. Each laboratory should have a program for verifying the accuracy and traceability of calibration standards against the highest quality standards available. If possible, NIST-SRMs or other certified reference standards should be used for calibration standards (see Section 8.3.3.4 and Appendix M). A log of all calibration materials and standard solutions should be maintained. Appropriate storage conditions (i.e., container specifications, shelf-life, temperature, humidity, light condition) should be documented and maintained.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-26 **Table 8-8. Fish and Shellfish Tissue Reference Materials Identification**  **code Analytes**  **Source Matrix**  DOLT-1 Elements NRCC Dogfish liver (freeze-dried) DORM-1 Elements NRCC Dogfish muscle (freeze-dried) LUTS-1 Elements NRCC Non-defatted lobster hepatopancreas TORT-1 Elements NRCC Lobster hepatopancreas GBW-08571 Elements NRCCRM Mussel tissue (freeze-dried) GBW-08572 Elements NRCCRM Prawn tissue MA-A-1/OC Organic compounds IAEA Copepod homogenate (freeze-dried) MA-A-3/OC Organic compounds IAEA Shrimp homogenate (freeze-dried) MA-B-3/OC Organic compounds IAEA Fish tissue (freeze-dried) MA-M-2/OC Organic compounds IAEA Mussel tissue MA-A-1/TM Elements IAEA Copepod homogenate (freeze-dried) MA-A-2/TM Elements IAEA Fish flesh homogenate MA-B-3/TM Elements IAEA Fish tissue (freeze-dried) MA-B-3/RN Isotopes IAEA Fish tissue (freeze-dried) IAEA-350 Elements IAEA Tuna homogenate (freeze-dried) IAEA-351 Organic compounds IAEA Tuna homogenate (freeze-dried) IAEA-352 Isotopes IAEA Tuna homogenate (freeze-dried) CRM-278 Elements BCR Mussel tissue (freeze-dried) CRM-422 Elements BCR Cod muscle (freeze-dried) EPA-FISH Pesticides EPA1 Fish tissue EPA-SRS903 Chlordane EPA2 Fish tissue EPA-0952 Mercury EPA1 Fish tissue EPA-2165 Mercury EPA1 Fish tissue RM-50 Elements NIST Albacore tuna (freeze-dried) SRM-1566a Elements NIST Oyster tissue (freeze-dried) SRM-1974 Organic compounds NIST Mussel tissue (frozen) SRM-2974 Organic compounds NIST Mussel tissue (freeze-dried) NIES-6 Elements NIES Mussel tissue Sources: BCR = Community Bureau of Reference, Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General for Science, Research and Development, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance Branch, EMSL-Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA. (EPA1: Material available from Supelco, Inc., Supelco Park, Bellefonte, PA, 16823- 0048, USA. EPA2: Material available from Fisher Scientific, 711 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15219.) IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency, Analytical Quality Control Service, Laboratory Seibersdorf, P. O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria. NRCCRM = National Research Center for CRMs, Office of CRMs, No. 7, District 11, Hepingjie, Chaoyangqu, Beijing, 100013, China. NRCC = National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Environmental Chemistry, Marine Analytical Chemistry Standards Program, Division of Chemistry, Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R9, Canada. NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Standard Reference Materials, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, USA. NIES = National Institute for Environmental Studies, Yatabe-machi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305, Japan.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-27 **8.3.3.2.1 Initial and routine calibration**
Prior to beginning routine analyses of samples, a minimum of three (and preferably five) calibration standards should be used to construct a calibration curve for each target analyte, covering the normal working range of the instrument or the expected target analyte concentration range of the samples to be analyzed. The lowest-concentration calibration standard should be at or near the estimated method detection limit (see Section 8.3.3.3.1). Calibration standards should be prepared in the same matrix (i.e., solvent) as the final sample extract or digestate. Criteria for acceptable calibration (e.g., acceptable limits for r 2 , slope, intercept, percent recovery, response factors) should be established for each analytical method. If these control limits are exceeded, the source of the problem (e.g., inaccurate standards, instrument instability or malfunction) should be identified and appropriate corrective action taken. No analyses should be performed until acceptable calibration has been achieved and documented.
In addition to the initial calibration, an established schedule for the routine calibration and maintenance of analytical instruments should be followed, based on manufacturers ’ specifications, historical data, and specific procedural requirements. At a minimum, calibration should be performed each time an instrument is set up for analysis, after any major disruption or failure, after any major maintenance, and whenever a calibration check exceeds the recommended control limits (see Table 8-6).
Two types of calibration procedures are used in the analytical methods recommended for the quantitation of target analytes: external calibration and internal standard calibration.

**External calibration**
In external calibration, calibration standards with known concentrations of target analytes are analyzed, independent of samples, to establish the relationship between instrument response and target analyte concentration. External calibration is used for the analyses of metals and, at the option of the program manager, for the analyses of organics by gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC/ECD), gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID), or GC methods using other nonspecific detectors.
External calibration for metals analysis is considered acceptable if the percent recovery of all calibration standards is between 95 and 105 percent; external calibration for organic analyses is considered acceptable if the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the response factors (RFs) is  20 percent (see Table 8-6). If these limits are exceeded, the initial calibration should be repeated.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-28 **Internal standard calibration**
Calibration of GC/mass spectrometry (MS) systems used for the analysis of organic target analytes requires the addition of an **internal standard** to each calibration standard and determination of the res ponse of the target analyte of interest relative to that of the internal standard. Internal standard calibration may also be used with nonspecific detector GC methods such as GC/ECD and GC/FID. Internal standards used to determine the relative response factors (RRFs) are termed instrument or injection internal standards (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d; U.S. EPA, 1991e). The addition of instrument internal standards to both calibration standards and sample extracts ensures rigorous quantitation, particularly accounting for shifts in retention times of target analytes in complex sample extracts relative to calibration standards. Recommended instrument internal standards for semivolatile organic compounds are included in analytical methods for these compounds (see references in Table 8-2).
The RRF for each target analyte is calculated for each calibration standard as follows:

RRF t = (A t ) (C is ) / (A is ) (C t ) (8-1)

where

A t = Measured response (integrated peak area) for the target analyte C is = Concentration of the instrument internal standard in the calibration standard A is = Measured response (integrated peak area) for the instrument internal standard C t = Concentration of the target analyte in the calibration standard.
If the RSD of the average RRF t for all calibration standards (RRF t ———— ) is  30 percent, RRF t can be assumed to be constant across the working calibration range and RRF t ———— can be used to quantitate target analyte concentrations in the samples as follows:

C t (ppm or ppb, wet weight) = (A t ) (C is ) (V e ) / (A is ) (RRF t ———— ) (W) (8-2)

where

C t = Concentration of the target analyte in the sample C is = Concentration of the instrument internal standard in the sample extract V e = Volume of the final sample extract (mL) W = Weight of sample extracted (g)**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-29 and A t , A is , and RRF t ———— are defined as in Equation (8-1).

If the RSD of RRF t ———— for all calibration standards is >30 percent, the initial calibration should be repeated (see Table 8-6).

**8.3.3.2.2 Routine calibration checks**
After initial calibration has been achieved and prior to the routine analyses of samples, the accuracy of the calibration should be verified by the analysis of a calibration check standard. A **calibration check standard** is a mid-range calibration standard that has been prepared independently (i.e., using a different stock) from the initial calibration standards. When internal standard calibration is being used, an instrument internal standard must be added to each calibration check standard.

Routine calibration checks should be c onducted often enough throughout each analysis run to ensure adequate maintenance of instrument calibration (see Table 8-6). A calibration check should always be performed after analyzing the last sample in a batch and at the end of each analysis run.
If a calibration check does not fall within specified calibration control limits, the source of the problem should be determined and appropriate corrective action taken (see Table 8-6). After acceptable calibration has been reestablished, all suspect analyses should be repeated. If resources permit, it is recommended that all samples after the last acceptable calibration check be reanalyzed. Otherwise, the last sample analyzed before the unacceptable calibration check should be reanalyzed first and reanalysis of samples should continue in reverse order until the difference between the reanalysis and initial results is within the control limits specified in Table 8-6. If reanalysis is not possible, all suspect data (i.e., since the last acceptable calibration check) should be identified clearly in the laboratory records and the data report.
**8.3.3.2.3 Calibration range and data reporting**
As noted in Section 8.3.2.1, the lowest-concentration calibration standard should be at or near the method detection limit. The highest-concentration calibration standard should be selected to cover the full range of expected concentrations of the target analyte in fish and shellfish tissue samples. If a sample concentration occurs outside the calibration range, the sample should be diluted or concentrated as appropriate and reanalyzed or the calibration range should be extended. Extremely high concentrations of organic compounds may indicate that the extraction capabilities of the method have been saturated and extraction of a smaller sample or modification of the extraction procedure may be required.
All reported concentrations must be within the upper limit of the demonstrated working calibration range. Procedures for reporting data, with appropriate**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-30 qualifications for data below method detection and quantitation limits, are given in Section 8.3.3.3.3.

**8.3.3.3 Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Limits**

**—** It is the responsibility of each laboratory to determine appropriate detection and quantitation limits for each analytical method for each target analyte in a fish or shellfish tissue matrix. When available scientific literature demonstrates that the selected SVs are analytically attainable, the laboratory is responsible for ensuring that these limits are sufficiently low to allow reliable quantitation of the analyte at or below the selected SVs (see Section 5.2). Detection and quantitation limits must be determined prior to the use of any method for routine analyses and after any significant changes are made to a method during routine analyses. Several factors influence achievable detection and quantitation limits regardless of the specific analytical procedure. These include amount of sample available, matrix interferences, and stability of the instrumentation. The limits of detection given in Table 8-4 are considered to be representative of typically attainable values. Depending upon individual laboratory c apabilities and fish tissue matrix pr operties, it should be noted that SVs for some recommended target analytes (e.g., inorganic arsenic, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, toxaphene, PCBs, and dioxins/ furans) may not always be analytically attainable quantitation limits. In these instances, all historic and current data on contaminant sources and on water, sediment, and fish and shellfish contami nant tissue data should be reviewed to provide additional information that could aid in the risk assessment process and in making risk management decisions.
The EPA has previously issued guidance on detection limits for trace metal and organic compounds for analytical methods used in chemical contaminant monitoring programs (U.S. EPA, 1985a). However, at present there is no clear consensus among analytical chemists on a standard procedure for determining and reporting the limits of detection and quantitation of analytical procedures. Furthermore, detection and quantitation limits reported in the literature are seldom clearly defined. Reported detection limits may be based on instrument sensitivity or determined from the analyses of met hod blanks or low-level matrix spikes; quantitation limits may be determined from the analyses of method blanks or low-level matrix spikes (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d).

**8.3.3.3.1 Detection limits**
The EPA recommends that the method detection limit (MDL) defined below and determined according to 40 CFR 136, Appendix B, be used to establish the limits of detection for the analytical methods used for analyses of all target analytes:

• **Method Detection Limit** : The minimum concentration of an analyte in a given matrix (i.e., fish or shellfish tissue homogenates for the purposes of this guidance) that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the concentration is greater than zero. The MDL is determined by multiplying**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-31 the appropriate (i.e., n-1 degrees of freedom) one-sided 99 percent Student ’ s t-statistic **(t 0.99**  **)** by the standard deviation **(S)** obtained from a minimum of seven replicate analyses of a **spiked matrix sample** containing the analyte of interest at a concentration three to five times the estimated MDL (Glaser et al., 1981; 40 CFR 136, Appendix B):
MDL = (t 0.99 ) (S). (8-3)
It is important to emphasize that all sample processing steps of the analytical method (e.g., digestion, extraction, cleanup) must be included in the determination of the MDL.
In addition to the MDL, three other types of detection limits have been defined by the American Chemical Society Committee on Environmental Improvement (Keith, 1991a):

• **Instrument Detection Limit (IDL)** : The smallest signal above background noise that an instrument can detect reliably.

• **Limit of Detection (LOD)** : The lowest concentration that can be determined to be statistically different from a method blank at a specified level of confidence. The recommended value for the LOD is three times the standard deviation of the blank in replicate analyses, corresponding to a 99 percent confidence level.

• **Reliable Detection Limit (RDL):** The concentration level of an analyte in a given matrix at which a detection decision is extremely likely. The RDL is generally set higher than the MDL. When RDL=MDL, the risk of a false positive at 3  from zero is <1 percent, whereas the corresponding risk of a false negative is 50 percent. When RDL=2MDL, the risk of either a false positive or a false negative at 3  from zero is <1 percent.
Each of these estimates has its practical limitations. The IDL does not account for possible blank contaminants or matrix interferences. The LOD accounts for blank contaminants but not for matrix effects or interferences. In some instances, the relatively high value of the MDL or RDL may be too stringent and result in the rejection of valid data; however, these are the only detection limit estimates that account for matrix effects and interferences and provide a high level of statistical confidence in sample results. The MDL is the recommended detection limit in the EPA EMAP-NC Program (U.S. EPA, 1991e).
The MDL, expressed as the concentration of target analyte in fish tissue, is calculated from the measured MDL of the target analyte in the sample extract or digestate according to the following equation:

MDL tissue (ppm or ppb) = (MDL extract V) /W (8-4)**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-32 where
V = Final extract or digestate volume, after dilution or concentration (mL) W = Weight of sample digested or extracted (g).
Equation 8-4 clearly illustrates that the MDL in tissue may be improved (reduced) by increasing the sample weight (W) and/or decreasing the final extract or digestate volume (V).
The initial MDL is a statistically derived empirical value that may differ in actual samples depending on several factors, including sample size, matrix effects, and percent moisture. Therefore, it is recommended that each laboratory reevaluate annually all MDLs for the analytical methods used for the sample matrices typically encountered (U.S. EPA, 1991e).
Experienced analysts may use their best professional judgment to adjust the measured MDL to a lower "typically achievable" detection limit (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990e; U.S. EPA, 1985a) or to derive other estimates of detection limits. For example, EPA recommends the use of lower limits of detection (LLDs) for GG/MS methods used to analyze or ganic pollutants in bioaccumulation monitoring programs (U.S. EPA, 1986a). Estimation of the LLD for a given analyte involves determining the noise level in the retention window for the quantitation mass of the analyte for at least three field samples in the sample set being analyzed. The LLD is then estimated as the concentration corresponding to the signal required to exceed the average noise level observed by at least a factor of 2. Based on the best professional judgment of the analyst, this LLD is applied to samples in the set with comparable or lower interference; samples with significantly higher interferences (i.e., by at least a factor of 2) are assigned correspondingly higher LLDs. LLDs are greater than IDLs but usually are less than the more rigorously defined MDLs. Thus, data quantified between the LLD and the MDL have a lower statistical confidence associated with them than data quantified above the MDL. However, these data are considered valid and useful in assessing low-level environmental contamination.
If estimates of detection limits other than the MDL are developed and used to qualify reported data, they should be clearly defined in the analytical SOPs and in all data reports, and their relationship to the MDL should be clearly described.

**8.3.3.3.2 Quantitation limits**
In addition to the MDL, a method quantitation limit (MQL), or minimum concentration allowed to be reported at a specified level of confidence without qualifications, should be derived for each analyte. Ideally, MQLs should account for matrix effects and interferences. The MQL can be greater than or equal to the MDL. At present, there is no consistent guidance in the scientific literature for determining MQLs; therefore, it is not possible to provide specific recommendations for determining these limits at this time.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-33 The American Chemical Society Committee on Environmental Improvement (Keith, 1991b; Keith et al., 1983) has defined one type of quantitation limit:

• **Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)** : The concentration above which quantitative results may be obtained with a specified degree of confidence. The recommended value for the LOQ is 10 times the standard deviation of a method blank in replicate analyses, corresponding to an uncertainty of ±30 percent in the measured value (10  ± 3  ) at the 99 percent confidence level.
The LOQ is the recommended quantitation limit in the EPA EMAP-NC Program (U.S. EPA, 1991e). However, the LOQ does not account for matrix effects or interferences.
The U.S. EPA (1986d) has defined another type of quantitation limit:

• **Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL):** The lowest concentration that can be reliably reported within specified limits of precision and accuracy under routine laboratory operating conditions.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990d) and the National Dioxin Study (U.S. EPA, 1987d) used a PQL based on the lowest concentration of the initial calibration curve (C, in μg/mL), the amount of sample typically analyzed (W, in g), and the final extract volume (V, in mL) of that method:

(8-5) 

### PQL g g ppm C g mL V mL W g ( / [ ]) (/ ) () ( ) m m

= ·

However, this PQL is also applicable only to samples without substantial matrix effects or interferences.
A reliable detection limit (RDL) equal to 2 MDL may also be used as an estimate of the MQL (see Section 8.3.3.3.1). The RDL accounts for matrix effects and provides a high level of statistical confidence in analytical results.
Analysts must use their expertise and professional judgment to determine the best estimate of the MQL for each target analyte. MQLs, including the estimated degree of confidence in analyte concentrations above the quantitation limit, should be clearly defined in the analytical SOPs and in all data reports.
**8.3.3.3.3 Use of detection and quantitation limits in reporting data**
The analytical laboratory does not have responsibility or authority to censor data. Therefore, all data should be reported with complete documentation of limitations and problems. Method detection and quantitation limits should be used to qualify reported data for each composite sample as follows (Keith, 1991b):**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-34 • "Zero" concentration (no observed response) should be reported as not detected (ND) with the MDL noted, e.g., "ND(MDL=X)".

• Concentrations below the MDL should be reported with the qualification that they are below the MDL.

• Concentrations between the MDL and the MQL should be reported with the qualification that they are below the quantitation limit.

• Concentrations at or above the MQL may be reported and used without qualification.
The use of laboratory data for comparing target analyte concentrations to SVs in screening and intensive studies is discussed in Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2.
**8.3.3.4 Assessment of Method Accuracy**

**—** The accuracy of each analytical method should be assessed and documented for each target analyte of interest, in a fish or shellfish tissue matrix, prior to beginning routine analyses and on a regular basis during routine analyses.
Method accuracy may be assessed by analysis of appropriate reference materials (i.e., SRMs or CRMs prepared from actual contaminated fish or shellfish tissue, see Table 8-8, **laboratory control samples** (i.e., accuracy-based samples consisting of fish and shellfish tissue homogenates spiked with compounds representative of the target analytes of interest), and/or **matrix spikes** . If possible, laboratory control samples should be SRMs or CRMs. **Note:** Only the analysis of fish or shellfish tissue SRMs or CRMs prepared from actual contaminated fish or shellfish tissue allows rigorous assessment of total method accuracy, including the accuracy with which an extraction or digestion procedure isolates the target analyte of interest from actual contaminated fish or shellfish. The analysis of spiked laboratory control samples or matrix spikes provides an assessment of method accuracy including sample handling and analysis procedures but does not allow rigorous assessment of the accuracy or efficiency of extraction or digestion procedures for actual contaminated fish or shellfish. Consequently, these samples should not be used for the primary assessment of total method accuracy unless SRMs or CRMs prepared from actual contaminated fish or shellfish tissue are not available.
The concentrations of target analytes in samples used to assess accuracy should fall within the range of concentrations found in the field samples; however, this may not always be possible for reference materials or laboratory control samples because of the limited number of these samples available in fish and shellfish tissue matrices (see Table 8-8). Matrix spike samples should be prepared using spike concentrations approximately equal to the concentrations found in the unspiked samples. An acceptable range of spike concentrations is 0.5 to 5 times**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-35 the expected sample concentrations (U.S. EPA, 1987e). Spikes should always be added to the sample homogenates prior to digestion or extraction.
Accuracy is calculated as percent recovery from the analysis of reference materials, or laboratory control samples, as follows:
% Recovery = 100 (M/T) (8-6)

where
M = Measured value of the concentration of target analyte T = "True" value of the concentration of target analyte.
Accuracy is calculated as percent recovery from the analysis of matrix spike samples as follows:
% Recovery = [(M s - M u )/T s ] x 100 (8-7)

where

M s = Measured concentration of target analyte in the spiked sample M u = Measured concentration of target analyte in the unspiked sample T s = "True" concentration of target analyte added to the spiked sample.
When sample concentrations are less than the MDL, the value of one-half the MDL should be used as the concentration of the unspiked sample (M u ) in calculating spike recoveries.
**8.3.3.4.1 Initial assessment of method accuracy**
As discussed above, method accuracy should be assessed initially by analyzing appropriate SRMs or CRMs that are prepared from actual contaminated fish or shellfish tissue. The number of reference samples required to be analyzed for the initial assessment of method accuracy should be determined by each laboratory for each analytical procedure with concurrence of the program manager. If such SRMs or CRMs are not available, laboratory control samples or matrix spikes may be used for initial assessment of method accuracy.
**8.3.3.4.2 Routine assessment of method accuracy**
Laboratory control samples and matrix spikes should be analyzed for continuous assessment of accuracy during routine analyses. It is recommended that one laboratory control sample and one matrix spike sample be analyzed with every 20 samples or with each sample batch, whichever is more frequent (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1990d, 1990e). Ideally, CRMs or SRMs should also be analyzed at this recommended frequency; however, limited availability and cost of these materials may make this impractical.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-36 For organic compounds, isotopically labeled or surrogate recovery standards that must be added to each sample to monitor overall method performance also provide an assessment of method accuracy (see Section 8.3.3.7.1).
Percent recovery values for spiked samples must fall within established control limits (see Table 8-6). If the percent recovery falls outside the control limit, the analyses should be discontinued, appropriate corrective action taken, and, if possible, the samples associated with the spike reanalyzed. If reanalysis is not possible, all suspect data should be clearly identified.

**Note:** Reported data should not be corrected for percent recoveries. Recovery data should be reported for each sample to facilitate proper evaluation and use of analytical results.
Poor performance on the analysis of reference materials or poor spike recovery may be caused by inadequate mixing of the composite homog enate sample before aliquotting, inconsistent digestion or extraction proc edures, matrix interferences, or instrumentation problems. If replicate analyses are acceptable (see Section 8.3.3.5), matrix interferences or loss of target analytes during sample preparation are indicated. To check for loss of target analytes during sample preparation, a step-by-step examination of the procedure using spiked blanks should be conducted. For example, to check for loss of metal target analytes during digestion, a postdigestion spike should be prepared and analyzed and the results compared with those from a predigestion spike. If the results are significantly different, the digestion technique should be modified to obtainacceptable recoveries. If there is no significant difference in the results of preand postdigestion spikes, the sample should be diluted by at least a factor of 5 and reanalyzed. If spike recovery is st ill poor, then the method of standard additions or use of a matrix modifier is indicated (U.S. EPA, 1987e).

**8.3.3.5 Assessment of Method Precision**

**—** The precision of each analytical method should be assessed and documented for each target analyte prior to the performance of routine analyses and on a regular basis during routine analysis.
Precision is defined as the agreement among a set of replicate measurements without assumption of knowledge of the true value. Method precision (i.e., total variability due to sample preparation and analysis) is estimated by means of the analyses of duplicate or replicate tissue homogenate samples containing concentrations of the target analyte of interest above the MDL. All samples used for assessment of total method precision must be carried through the complete analytical procedure, including extraction or digestion.
The most commonly used estimates of precision are the relative standard deviation or coefficient of variation (CV) for multiple samples, and the relative percent**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-37 difference (RPD) when only two samples are available. These are defined as follows:

RSD = CV = 100 S/x  ̄ i (8-8)

where

S = Standard deviation of the x i measurements
x  ̄ i = Arithmetic mean of the x i measurements

and
RPD = 100 {(x 1 - x 2 )/[(x 1 + x 2 )/2]} . (8-9)
**8.3.3.5.1 Initial assessment of method precision**
Method precision should be assessed prior to routine sample analyses by analyzing replicate samples of the same reference materials, laboratory control samples, and/or matrix spikes that are used for initial assessment of method accuracy (see Section 8.3.3.4.1). The number of replicates required to be analyzed for the initial assessment of method precision should be determined by each laboratory for each analytical proc edure with concurrence of the programmanager. Because precision may be concentration-dependent, initial assessments of precision across the estimated working range should be obtained.
**8.3.3.5.2 Routine assessment of method precision**
Ongoing assessment of method precision during routine analysis should be performed by analyzing replicate aliquots of tissue homogenate samples taken prior to sample extraction or digestion (i.e., **laboratory replicates** ) and **matrix spike replicates**  . Matrix spike concentrations should approximate unspiked sample concentrations; an acceptable range for spike concentrations is 0.5 to 5 times the sample concentrations (U.S. EPA, 1987e).
For ongoing assessment of method precision, it is recommended that one laboratory duplicate and one matrix spike duplicate be analyzed with every 20 samples or with each sample batch, whichever is more frequent. In addition, it is recommended that a **laboratory control sample** be analyzed at the above frequency to allow an ongoing assessment of method performance, including an estimate of method precision over time. Specific procedures for estimating method precision by laboratory and/or matrix spike duplicates and laboratory control samples are given in ASTM (1983). This reference also includes procedures for estimating method precision from spike recoveries and for testing for significant change in method precision over time.
Precision estimates obtained from the analysis of laboratory duplicates, matrix spike duplicates, and repeated laboratory control sample analyses must fall within**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-38 specified control limits (see Table 8-6). If these values fall outside the control limits, the analyses should be discontinued, appropriate corrective action taken, and, if possible, the samples associated with the duplicates reanalyzed. If reanalysis is not possible, all suspect data should be clearly identified.
Unacceptable precision estimates derived from the analysis of duplicate or replicate samples may be caused by inadequate mixing of the sample before aliquotting; inconsistent contamination; inconsistent digestion, extraction, or cleanup procedures; or instrumentation problems (U.S. EPA, 1987e).
**8.3.3.5.3 Routine assessment of analytical precision**
The analysis of replicate aliquots of final sample extracts or digestates **(analytical replicates)**  provides an estimate of analytical precision only; it does not provide an estimate of total method precision. For organic target analytes, analytical replicates may be included at the discretion of the program manager or laboratory supervisor. For the analysis of target metal analytes by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAA) and cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry (CVAA), it is recommended that duplicate injections of each sample be analyzed and the mean concentration be reported. The RPD should be within control limits established by the program manager or laboratory supervisor, or the sample should be reanalyzed (U.S. EPA, 1987e).
**8.3.3.5.4 Assessment of overall variability**
Estimates of the overall variability of target analyte concentrations in a sample fish or shellfish population and of the sampling and analysis procedures can be obtained by collecting and analyzing **field replicates** . Replicate field samples are optional in screening studies; however, if resources permit, it is recommended that duplicate samples be collected at 10 percent of the screening sites as a minimal QC check. Analysis of replicate field samples provides some degree of variability in that the samples themselves are typically collected and exposed to the same environmental conditions and contaminants. There are many points of potential dissimilarity between samples of the type described here; however, this variability is reduced when well-homogenized composite samples are analyzed. In intensive studies, replicate samples should be collected at each sampling site (see Section 6.1.2.7). Although the primary purpose of replicate field samples in intensive studies is to allow more reliable estimates of the magnitude of contamination, extreme variability in the results of these samples may also indicate that sampling and/or analysis procedures are not adequately controlled.
**8.3.3.6 Routine Monitoring of Interferences and Contamination**

**—** Because contamination can be a limiting factor in the reliable quantitation of target contaminants in tissue samples, the recommendations for proper materials and handling and cleaning procedures given in Sections 6.2.2 and 7.2 should be followed carefully to avoid contamination of samples in the field and laboratory.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-39 Many metal contamination problems are due to airborne dust. High zinc blanks may result from airborne dust or galvanized iron, and high chromium and nickel blanks often indicate contamination from stainless steel. Mercury thermometers should not be used in the field because broken thermometers can be a source of significant mercury contamination. In the laboratory, samples to be analyzed for mercury should be isolated from materials and equipment (e.g., polarographs) that are potential sources of mercury contamination. Cigarette smoke is a source of cadmium. Consequently, care should be taken to avoid the presence of cigarette smoke during the collection, handling, processing, and analysis of samples for cadmium. In organic analyses, phthalates, methylene chloride, and toluene are common laboratory contaminants that are often detected in blanks at concentrations above the MDL (U.S. EPA, 1987e).
Cross-contamination between samples should be avoided during all steps of analysis of organic contaminants by GC-based methods. Injection micro-syringes must be cleaned thoroughly between uses. If separate syringes are used for the injection of solutions, possible differences in syringe volumes should be assessed and, if present, corrected for. Particular care should be taken to avoid carryover when high- and low-level samples are analyzed sequentially. Analysis of an appropriate method blank may be required following the analysis of a high-level sample to assess carryover (U.S. EPA, 1987e).
To monitor for interferences and contamination, the following blank samples should be analyzed prior to beginning sample collection and analyses and on a routine basis throughout each study (U.S. EPA, 1987e):

• **Field blanks** are rinsates of empty field sample containers (i.e., aluminum foil packets and plastic bags) that are prepared, shipped, and stored as actual field samples. Field blanks should be analyzed to evaluate field sample packaging materials as sources of contamination. Each rinsate should be collected and the volume recorded. The rinsate should be analyzed for target analytes of interest and the total amount of target analyte in the rinsate recorded. It is recommended that one field blank be analyzed with every 20 samples or with each batch of samples, whichever is more frequent.

• **Processing blanks** are rinsates of utensils and equipment used for dissecting and homogenizing fish and shellfish. Processing blanks should be analyzed, using the procedure described above for field blanks, to evaluate the efficacy of the cleaning procedures used between samples. It is recommended that processing blanks be analyzed at least once at the beginning of a study and preferably once with each batch of 20 or fewer samples.

• **Bottle blanks** are rinsates of empty bottles used to store and ship sample homogenates. Bottle blanks should be collected after the bottles are cleaned prior to use for storage or shipment of hom ogenates. They should be analyzed, using the procedure described above for field blanks, to evaluate their potential as sources of contamination. It is recommended that one bottle**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-40 blank be analyzed for each lot of bottles or with each batch of 20 or fewer samples, whichever is more frequent.

• **Method blanks** are samples of extraction or digestion solvents that are carried through the complete analytical procedure, including extraction or digestion; they are also referred to as **procedural blanks.** Method blanks should be analyzed to evaluate contaminants resulting from the total analytical method (e.g., contaminated glassware, reagents, solvents, column packing materials, processing equipment). It is recommended that one method blank be analyzed with every 20 samples or with each batch of samples, whichever is more frequent.

• **Reagent blanks** are samples of reagents used in the analytical procedure. It is recommended that each lot of analytical reagents be analyzed for target analytes of interest prior to use to prevent a potentially serious source of contamination. For organic analyses, each lot of alumina, silica gel, sodium sulfate, or Florasil used in extract drying and cleanup should also be analyzed for target analyte contamination and cleaned as necessary. Surrogate mixtures used in the analysis of organic target analytes have also been found to contain contaminants and the absence of interfering impurities should be verified prior to use (U.S. EPA, 1987e).
Because the contamination in a blank sample may not always translate into contamination of the tissue samples, analysts and program managers must use their best professional judgment when interpreting blank analysis data. Ideally, there should be no detectable concentration of any target analyte in any blank sample (i.e., the concentration of target analytes in all blanks should be less than the MDL). However, program managers may set higher control limits (e.g.,

 MQL) depending on overall data quality requirements of the monitoring program. If the concentration of a target analyte in any blank is greater than the established control limit, all steps in the relevant sample handling, processing, and analysis procedures should be reviewed to identify the source of contamination and appropriate corrective action should be taken. If there is sufficient sample material, all samples associated with the unacceptable blank should be reanalyzed. If reanalysis is not possible, all suspect data should be identified clearly.

**Note:** Analytical data should not be corrected for blank contamination by the reporting laboratory; however, blank concentrations should always be reported with each associated sample value.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-41 **8.3.3.7 Special QA and QC Procedures for the Analysis of Organic Target Analytes**

**— 8.3.3.7.1 Routine monitoring of method performance** 
To account for losses during sample preparation (i.e., extraction, cleanup) and to monitor overall method performance, a standard compound that has chemical and physical properties as similar as possible to those of the target analyte of interest should be added to each sample prior to extraction and to each calibration standard. Such compounds may be termed **surrogate recovery standards** . A stable, **isotopically labeled analog of the target analyte** is an ideal surrogate recovery standard for GC/MS analysis.
If resources permit, an isotope dilution GC/MS technique such as EPA Method 1625 (40 CFR 136, Appendix A) is recommended for the analysis of organic target analytes for which isotopically labeled analogs are available. In this technique, RRFs used for quantitation may be calculated from measured isotope ratios in calibration standards and not from instrument internal standards. However, an instrument internal standard still must be added to the final sample extract prior to analysis to determine the percent recoveries of isotopically labeled recovery standards added prior to extraction. Thus, in isotope dilution methods, instrument internal standards may be used only for QC purposes (i.e., to assess the quality of data) and not to quantify analytes. Control limits for the percent recovery of each isotopically labeled recovery standard should be established by the program manager, consistent with program data quality requirements. Control limits for percent recovery and recommended corrective actions given in EPA Method 1625 (40 CFR 136, Appendix A) should be used as guidance.
If isotopically labeled analogs of target analytes are not available or if the isotope dilution technique cannot be used (e.g., for chlorinated pesticides and PCBs analyzed by GC/ECD), other surrogate compounds should be added as recovery standards to each sample prior to extraction and to each calibration standard. These surrogate recovery standards should have chemical and physical properties similar to the target analytes of interest and should not be expected to be present in the original samples. Recommended surrogate recovery standards are included in the methods referenced in Table 8-2 and in EMMI (U.S. EPA, 1991f).
Samples to which surrogate recovery standards have been added are termed **surrogate spikes** . The percent recovery of each surrogate spike (% R s ) should be determined for all samples as follows:

% R s = 100 (C m /C a ) (8-10) where

% R s = Surrogate spike percent recovery C m = Measured concentration of surrogate recovery standard**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-42 C a = Actual concentration of surrogate recovery standard added to the sample.
Control limits for the percent recovery of each surrogate spike should be established by the program manager consistent with program data quality requirements. The control limits in the most recent EPA CLP met hods (U.S. EPA, 1991c) are recommended for evaluating surrogate recoveries.

**Note:** Reported data should not be corrected for percent recoveries of surrogate recovery standards. Recovery data should be reported for each sample to facilitate proper evaluation and use of the analytical results.
**8.3.3.7.2 Other performance evaluation procedures**
The following additional procedures are required to evaluate the performance of GC-based analytical systems prior to the routine analysis of field samples (U.S. EPA, 1989c; U.S. EPA, 1991c). It is the responsibility of each program manager to determine specific evaluation procedures and control limits appropriate for their data quality requirements.
**Evaluation of the GC system**
GC system performance should be evaluated by determining the number of theoretical plates of resolution and the relative retention times of the internal standards.

Column Resolution : The number of theoretical plates of resolution, N, should be determined at the time the calibration curve is generated (using chrysene-d 10 ) and monitored with each sample set. The value of N should not decrease by more than 20 percent during an analysis session. The equation for N is given as follows:
N = 16 (RT/W) 2 (8-11) where
RT = Retention time of chrysene-d 10 (s) W = Peak width of chrysene-d 10 (s).

Relative Retention Time : Relative retention times of the internal standards should not deviate by more than ±3 percent from the values calculated at the time the calibration curve was generated.
If the column resolution or relative retention times are not within the specified control limits, appropriate corrective action (e.g., adjust GC parameters, flush GC column, replace GC column) should be taken.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-43 **Evaluation of the MS system**
The performance of the mass spectrometer should be evaluated for sensitivity and spectral quality.
Sensitivity : The signal-to-noise value should be at least 3.0 or greater for m/z 198 from an injection of 10 ng decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP).
Spectral Quality : The intensity of ions in the spectrum of a 50-ng injection of DFTPP should meet the following criteria (U.S. EPA, 1991c):

m/z Criteria

51 30-80% mass 198 68 <2% mass 69 69 present 70 <2% mass 69 127 25-75% mass 198 197 <1% mass 198 198 base peak, 100% relative abundance 199 5-9% mass 198 275 10-30% mass 198 365 >0.75% mass 198 441 present and <mass 443 442 40-110% mass 198 443 15-24% mass 442
If the control limits for sensitivity or spectral quality are not met, appropriate corrective action (e.g., clean MS, retune MS) should be taken.
**Evaluation of cleanup columns**
Because the fatty content of many tissue samples may overload the cleanup columns, these columns should be calibrated and monitored regularly to ensure that target analytes are consistently collected in the proper fraction. Gel permeation columns should be monitored by visual inspection (for column discoloration, leaks, cracks, etc.) and by measurement of flow rate, column resolution, collection cycle, and method blanks (see Section 8.3.3.6). Silica gel columns should be evaluated by their ability to resolve cholesterol from a selected target analyte.
**8.3.3.8 External QA Assessment of Analytical Performance**

**—** Participation in an external QA program by all analytical laboratories in state fish and shellfish consumption advisory programs is strongly recommended for several reasons:**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-44 • To demonstrate laboratory capability prior to conducting routine analyses of field samples

• To provide an independent ongoing assessment of each l aboratory's capability to perform the required analyses

• To enhance the comparability of data between states and Regions.
Two types of external QA programs are recommended: **round-robin interlabor atory comparisons**  (often referred to as **interlaboratory calibration programs** ) and **split-sample interlaboratory comparisons**

. **8.3.3.8.1 Round-robin analysis interlaboratory comparison program**
At present, the only external round-robin QA program available for analytical laboratories conducting fish and shellfish tissue analyses for environmental pollutants is administered by NOAA in conjunction with its National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program (Cantillo, 1991). This QA program has been designed to ensure proper documentation of sampling and analysis procedures and to evaluate both the individual and collective performance of participating laboratories. Recently, NOAA and EPA have agreed to c onduct the NS&TProgram and the EMAP-NC Program as a coordinated effort. As a result, EMAPNC now cosponsors and cooperatively funds the NS&T QA Program, and the interlaboratory comparison exercises include all EMAP-NC laboratories (U.S. EPA, 1991e).

**Note:** Participation in the NS&T QA program by all laboratories performing chemical analyses for state fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring programs is recommended to enhance the credibility and comparability of analytical data among the various laboratories and programs.
Each laboratory participating in the NS&T QA program is required to demonstrate its analytic capability prior to the analysis of field samples by the blind analysis of a fish and shellfish tissue sample that is uncompromised, homogeneous, and contains the target analytes of interest at concentrations of interest. A laboratory's performance generally will be considered acceptable if its reported results are within ±30 percent (for organics) and ±15 percent (for metals) of the actual or certified concentration of each target analyte in the sample (U.S. EPA, 1991e). If any of the results exceed these control limits, the laboratory will be required to repeat the analysis until all reported results are within the control limits. Routine analysis of field samples will not be allowed until initial demonstration of laboratory capability is acceptable.
Following the initial demonstration of laboratory capability, each participating laboratory is required to participate in one intercomparison exercise per year as a continuing check on performance. This intercomparison exercise includes both organic and inorganic (i.e., trace metals) environmental and standard reference**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-45 samples. The organic analytical intercomparison program is coordinated by NIST, and the inorganic analytical intercomparison program is coordinated by the NRCC. Sample types and matrices vary yearly. Performance evaluation samples used in the past have included accuracy-based solutions, sample extracts, and representative matrices (e.g., tissue or sediment samples). Laboratories are required to analyze the performance evaluation samples blind and to submit their results to NIST or NRCC, as instructed. Individual laboratory performance is evaluated against the consensus values (i.e., grand means) of the results reported by all participating laboratories. Laboratories that fail to achieve acceptable performance must take appropriate corrective action. NIST and NRCC will provide technical assistance to participating laboratories that have problems with the intercomparison analyses. At the end of each calendar year, the results of the intercomparison exercises are reviewed at a workshop sponsored by NIST and NRCC. Representatives from each laboratory are encouraged to participate in these workshops, which provide an opportunity for discussion of analytical problems encountered in the intercomparison exercises.

**Note:** Nonprofit laboratories (e.g., EPA and other federal l aboratories, state, municipal, and nonprofit university laboratories) may participate in the NS&T QA program at no cost on a space-available basis. The cost of participation in the NIST Intercomparison Exercise Program for Organic Contaminants in the Marine Environment is $2,500 for private laboratories within and outside the United States. This cost covers samples for one exercise per year. Samples may be obtained directly from NIST by contacting Ms. Michele Shantz, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8392, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8392; Tel: 301-975-3106, FAX: 301-997-0685. Trace inorganic samples are available directly from NRCC by contacting Mr. Scott Willis, NRCC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A029, e-mail: scott.willie@NRC.CA, Tel: 613-993-4969.
To obtain additional information about participation in the NS&T QA program, contact Dr. Adriana Cantillo, QA Manager, NOAA/National Status and Trends Program, NYSCI1, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Tel: 301-713-3028, ext. 147, FAX: 301-713-4388.
**8.3.3.8.2 Split sample analysis interlaboratory comparison programs**
Another useful external QA procedure for assessing interlaboratory comparability of analytical data is a split-sample analysis program in which a percentage (usually 5 to 10 percent) of all samples analyzed by each state or Region are divided and distributed for analyses among laboratories from other states or Regions. Because actual samples are used in a split-sample analysis program, the results of the split-sample analyses provide a more direct assessment of the comparability of the reported results from different states or Regions.
The NS&T QA program does not include an interlaboratory split-sample analysis program. However, it is recommended that split-sample analysis programs be established by states and/or Regions that routinely share results.**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-46 **8.4 Documentation and Reporting of Data**
The results of all chemical analyses must be documented adequately and reported properly to ensure the correct evaluation and interpretation of the data.
**8.4.1 Analytical Data Reports**
The documentation of analytical data for each sample should include, at a minimum, the following information:

• Study identification (e.g., project number, title, phase)

• Description of the procedure used, including documentation and justification of any deviations from the standard procedure

• Method detection and quantitation limits for each target analyte

• Method accuracy and precision for each target analyte

• Discussion of any analytical problems and corrective action taken

• Sample identification number

• Sample weight (wet weight)

• Final dilution volume/extract volume

• Date(s) of analysis

• Identification of analyst

• Identification of instrument used (manufacturer, model number, serial number, location)

• Summary calibration data, including identification of calibration materials, dates of calibration and calibration checks, and calibration range(s); for GC/MS analyses, include DFTPP spectra and quantitation report

• Reconstructed ion chromatograms for each sample analyzed by GC/MS

• Mass spectra of detected target compounds for each sample analyzed by GC/MS

• Chromatograms for each sample analyzed by GC/ECD and/or GC/FID

• Raw data quantitation reports for each sample**8. LABORATORY PROCEDURES II**

**— SAMPLE ANALYSES** 

8-47 • Description of all QC samples associated with each sample (e.g., reference materials, field blanks, rinsate blanks, method blanks, duplicate or replicate samples, spiked samples, laboratory control samples) and results of all QC analyses. QC reports should include quantitation of all target analytes in each blank, recovery assessments for all spiked samples, and replicate sample summaries. Laboratories should report all surrogate and matrix spike recovery data for each sample; the range of recoveries should be included in any reports using these data.

• Analyte concentrations with reporting units identified (as ppm or ppb wet weight, to two significant figures unless otherwise justified). **Note:** Reported data should not be recovery- or blank-corrected.

• Lipid content (as percent wet weight)

• Specification of all tentatively identified compounds (if r equested) and any quantitation data.

• Data qualifications (including qualification codes and their definitions, if applicable, and a summary of data limitations).
To ensure completeness and consistency of reported data, standard forms should be developed and used by each laboratory for recording and reporting data from each analytical method. Standard data forms used in the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (U.S. EPA, 1991b, 1991c) may serve as useful examples for analytical laboratories.
All analytical data should be reviewed thoroughly by the analytical laboratory supervisor and, ideally, by a qualified chemist who is independent of the laboratory. In some cases, the analytical laboratory supervisor may conduct the full data review, with a more limited QA review provided by an independent chemist. The purpose of the data review is to evaluate the data relative to data quality specifications (e.g., detection and quantitation limits, precision, accuracy) and other performance criteria established in the Work/QA Project Plan. In many instances, it may be necessary to qualify reported data values; qualifiers should always be defined clearly in the data report. Recent guidance on the documentation and evaluation of trace metals data collected for Clean Water Act compliance monitoring (U.S. EPA, 1995h) provides additional useful information on data review procedures.
**8.4.2 Summary Reports**
Summaries of study data should be prepared for each target species at each sampling site. Specific recommendations for reporting data for screening and intensive studies are given in Section 9.2.**9. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING**

9-1 

## SECTION 9

**DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING**
This section provides guidance on (1) analysis of l aboratory data for both screening and intensive studies that should be included in state data reports, (2) data reporting requirements for both state-conducted screening and intensive studies, and (3) data reporting r equirements for a national data r epository for state-collected fish tissue data housed within the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database.
All data analysis and reporting procedures should be documented fully as part of the Work/QA Project Plan for each study, prior to initiating the study (see Appendix I). All routine data analysis and reporting procedures should be described in standard operating procedures. In particular, the procedures to be used to determine if the concentration of a target analyte in fish or shellfish tissue differs significantly from the selected screening value must be clearly documented.

**9.1 DATA ANALYSIS**
**9.1.1 Screening Studies**
The primary objective of **Tier 1** screening studies is to assist states in identifying potentially contaminated harvest areas where further investigation of fish and shellfish contamination may be warranted. The criteria used to determine whether the measured target analyte concentration in a fish or shellfish tissue composite sample is different from the SV (greater than or less than) should be clearly documented. If a reported target analyte concentration exceeds the SV in the screening study, a state should initiate a **Tier 2**
, **Phase I** , intensive study (see Section 6.1.2.1) to verify the level of contamination in the target species. Because of resource limitations, some states may choose to conduct a risk assessment using screening study data; however, this approach is not recommended because a valid statistical analysis cannot be performed on a single composite sample. If a reported analyte concentration is close to the SV but does not exceed the SV, the state should reexamine historic data on water, sediment, and fish tissue contamination at the site and evaluate data on laboratory performance. If these data indicate that further examination of the site is warranted, the state should initiate a **Tier 2**
, **Phase I** , intensive study to verify the magnitude of the contamination.**9. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING**

9-2 Because replicate composite samples are not required as part of a screening study, estimating the variability of the composite target analyte concentration at any site is precluded. The following procedure is recommended for use by states for analysis of the individual target analyte concentration for each composite sample from reported laboratory data (see Section 8.3.3.3)
• A datum reported below the method detection limit, including a datum reported as not detected (i.e., ND, no observed response) should be assigned a value of one-half the MDL or zero. • A datum reported between the MDL and the method quantitation limit should be assigned a value of the MDL plus one-half the difference between the MQL and the MDL. • A datum reported at or above the MQL should be used as reported.
This approach is similar to that published in 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 131, and 132—Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.
If resources permit and replicate composite samples are collected at a suspected site of contamination, then a state may conduct a statistical analysis of differences between the mean target analyte concentration and the SV, as described in Section 9.1.2.

**9.1.2 Intensive Studies**
The primary objectives of **Tier 2** intensive studies are to confirm the findings of the screening study by assessing the magnitude and geographic extent of the contamination in various size classes of selected target species. The EPA Office of Water recommends that states collect replicate composite samples of three size classes of each target species in the study area to verify whether the mean target analyte concentration of replicate composite samples for any size class exceeds the SV for any target analyte identified in the screening study. The statistical approach for this comparison is described in Section 6.1.2.7.
The following procedure is recommended for use by states in calculating the mean arithmetic target analyte concentration from reported laboratory data (see Section 8.3.3.3.3).
• Data reported below the MDL, including data reported as not detected (i.e., ND, no observed response) should be assigned a value of one-half the MDL. • Data reported between the MDL and the MQL should be assigned a value of the MDL plus one-half the difference between the MQL and the MDL. • Data reported at or above the MQL should be used as reported.
This approach is similar to that published in 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 131, and 132—Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.
Secondary objectives that may be assessed as part of **Tier 2** intensive studies**9. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING**

9-3can include defining the geographical region where fish contaminant concentrations exceed screening values; identifying geographical distribution of contaminant concentrations; and, in conjunction with historical data or future data collection, assessing changes in fish contaminant concentrations over time. The statistical considerations involved in comparing fish contaminant levels measured at different locations or times are discussed in Appendix N.
State staff should consult a statistician in interpreting intensive study tissue residue results to determine the need for additional monitoring, risk assessment, and issuance of a fish or shellfish consumption advisory. Additional information on risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication procedures will be provided in later volumes in this guidance series (see Section 1.4).

**9.2 DATA REPORTING**
**9.2.1 State Data Reports**
State data reports should be prepared by the fish contaminant monitoring program manager responsible for designing the screening and intensive studies. Summaries of **Tier 1** screening study data should be prepared for each target species sampled at each screening site. For **Tier 2** intensive studies ( **Phase I** and **Phase II** ), data reports should be prepared for each target species (by size class, as appropriate) at each sampling site within the waterbody under investigation (see Section 6.1.2). Screening and intensive study data reports should include, at a minimum, the information shown in Figure 9-1.
**9.2.2 Reports to the National Fish Tissue Residue Data Repository (NFTRDR)**
The EPA Office of Science and Technology within the Office of Water has established the NFTRDR, which is housed within the NLFWA database. This repository is a collection of fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring data gathered by various state, federal, and local agencies for advisory purposes. The objectives of the repository are to:

• Facilitate the exchange of fish and shellfish contaminant monitoring data nationally by improving the comparability and integrity of state data

• Encourage greater cooperation among regional and state fish advisory programs

• Assist states in their fish tissue data collection efforts by providing ongoing technical assistance.
The NLFWA database now contains a facility for storing fish tissue residue data as well as for documenting and mapping active and rescinded fish consumption advisories. Since 1996, a stand-alone version of the NFLWA database has been available for Internet downloads. Internet WEB-based tools have recently been developed to support queries and interactive mapping of both the general advisory information as well as fish tissue residue data. Internet-based tools are also being**9. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING**

9-4•Study identification (e.g., project number, title, and study type)•Program manager•Sampling site name•Latitude (decimal degrees preferred)•Longitude (decimal degrees preferred)•Type of waterbody (lake, river, estuary, etc.)•Name of waterbody•Sampling date (e.g., YYYYMMDD, Year 2000 compliant format)•Sampling time (e.g., HH, MM in a 24-h format)•Sampling gear type used (e.g., dredge, seine, trawl, gill net)•Sampling depth (feet or meters)•Standard common name of target species (preferably namesanctional by American Fisheries Society for inland waters or byNOAA for coastal waters)•Composite sample numbers•Number of individuals in each composite sample•Number of replicate composite samples•Predominant characteristics of specimens used in each compositesample- Predominant life stage of individuals in composite- Predominant sex of individuals in composite (if applicable)- Average age of individuals in composite (if applicable)- Average body length (cm)- Description of edible portion (tissue type)•Analytical methods used (including method for lipid analysis)•Method detection and quantitation limits for each target analyteanalyzed•Sample cleanup procedures (e.g., additional steps taken to furtherpurify the sample extracts or digestates)•Data qualifiers (e.g., additional qualifying information about themeasurement)•Percent lipid (wet weight basis) in each composite sample•For each target analyte in each composite sample:- Total wet weight of composite sample (g) used in analysis- Measured concentration (wet weight basis) as reported by thelaboratory (see Section 8.3.3.3.3)- Units of measurement for target analyte concentration (e.g., ppm)- Evaluation of laboratory performance (i.e., description of all QAand QC samples associated with the sample(s) and results of allQA and QC analyses)•In screening studies with only one composite sample for each targetspecies, the state should provide for each target analyte acomparison of reported concentration with selected SV (seeSection 4 tables) and indication of whether SV was exceeded forrecreational or subsistence fishers (see Section 9.1.1).•In intensive studies, for each target analyte in each set of replicatecomposite samples, the state should provide- Range of target analyte concentrations for each set of replicatecomposite samples- Mean (arithmetic) target analyte concentration for each set ofreplicate composite samples (see Section 9.1.2)- Standard deviation of mean target analyte concentration- Comparison of target analyte arithmetic mean concentration withselected SV (see Section 5) and indication of whether SV wasexceeded for recreational or subsistence fishers**Figure 9-1. Recommended data reporting requirements for screening and intensive studies. 9. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING** 

9-5 developed as a way for state agencies to add fish advisory and contaminant monitoring data to the NLFWA database and may be developed to perform some types of standard data analysis on the fish tissue residue data.
EPA has recently developed an Internet-based data entry facility for the NLFWA using some of the data elements included in Figure 9-1. This Internet-based data entry facility is housed within the EPA ’ s NLFWA database and allows states to archive fish advisory information as well as fish tissue residue data generated through their fish contaminant monitoring programs. States may prepare their own data tables and arrange to transfer these to EPA to be formatted and reviewed before entry into the repository. The information in the NFTRDR can be organized into three different tables (STATIONS, SAMPLES, and RESULTS tables) using such readily available PC relati onal database packages as ACCESS (Figure 9-2). If states submit their monitoring data in other file formats (e.g., spreadsheet files or ASCII files exported from other in-house database systems), a short data dictionary (metadata) file s hould be included (ASCII, Wordperfect, or WORD format) clearly documenting the meaning of all data fields and any codes, abbreviations, or measurement units used in the files.
State, regional, and local agency staff may obtain further information on the new Internet WEB-based database EPA now has available by contacting:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program-4305 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 PHONE: 202-260-7301 FAX: 202-260-9830

Jeffrey D. Bigler U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-4305 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 PHONE: 202-260-1305 E-MAIL: bigler.jeff@epa.gov**9. DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING**

9-6 **Fish Tissue Chemical Residue Data Tables: STATIONS, SAMPLES and RESULTS**

The **STATIONS** table includes basic locational data.

**Field name Field description** STATION_ID Waterbody, Station or Monitoring Site Identifier. This field becomes a database key field. Each record must have a unique STATION_ID. STATE State 2-character postal code abbreviation. WATERBODY (or SITENAME) A short caption to identify the waterbody or sampling station. LOCATION Additional descriptive information on the waterbody or station location. ADVNUM If the waterbody or site is associated with an advisory (active or rescinded), include the number assigned to this advisory in the current National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database. COUNTY County name. LAT Station latitude. A format in decimal degrees is preferred. LNG Station longitude. A format in decimal degrees is preferred.

The **SAMPLES** table includes data on the type of tissue sample collected.
**Field name Field description** SAMPLE_ID An identifier to each specific fish tissue sample from a waterbody or station. This is used as a database key, so each record must have a unique SAMPLE_ID STATION_ID Waterbody, Station or Monitoring Site Identifier as defined in the STATIONS table. SAMPLE_DATE The date the sample was collected in the field. Give date in a Year 2000 compliant format (YYYYMMDD). FISH_SPECIES Fish species names. Standard English common names as established by the American Fisheries Society for inland waters or NOAA for coastal water are preferred. SAMPLE_TYPE How the sample was prepared (e.g., fillet with skin-on or skin-off, whole fish). In the NUMBER_OF_FISH field below, multiple fish in a sample indicate a composite sample. LENGTH The length of the sample fish. For composites, an average length should be given. LENGTH_UNIT Length units of fish (cm or inches) WEIGHT Specimen or composite weight used for residue analysis. WEIGHT_UNIT Weight units (usually in grams). LIPID Percent extractable lipids. NUMBER_OF_FISH Number of fish (specimens) in sample. Number greater than a value of 1 indicates a composite sample.

The **RESULTS** table includes chemical-specific tissue sample concentrations.
**Field name Field description** SAMPLE_ID An identifier to each specific fish tissue sample from a waterbody or station. This is used as a database key, so each record must have a unique SAMPLE_ID PARAMETER Chemical name. File should specify all acronyms or abbreviations used. DETECTION_INFO A caption to document detection limit information (e.g., “ less than detection limit ” ). RESULT A number representing the concentration of a chemical (or the detection limit). RESULT_UNIT Units associated with concentration (e.g., “ ppm ” ).

**Figure 9-2. Key information fields for the National Fish Tissue Residue Data Repository.**10. LITERATURE CITED

10-1 

## SECTION 10
LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, R.T. 1974. American Seashells—The Marine Molluscs of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of North America . 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Agocs, M.M., R.A. Etzel, R .G. Parrish, D.C. Paschal, P.R. Cam pagna, D.S. Cohon, E.M. Kilbourne, and J.L. Hesse. 1990. Mercury exposure from interior latex paint. New England Journal of Medicine 323(16):1096-1101.
Amato, J.R., D.I. Mount, E.J., Durhan, et al. 1992. An example of the identification of diazinon as a primary toxicant in an effluent. Environ. Toxic. Chem. 11:209-216.
Anderson, R.O., and S.J. Gutreuter. 1983. Length, weight, and associated structural indices. pp. 283-300. In: Fisheries Techniques . L.A. Nielson and D.L. Johnson (eds). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Ashley, L.M. 1962. Laboratory Anatomy of the Turtle. W.C. Brown Company, Dubuque, IA.
ASTER, 1995. Ecotoxicity profile: Arsenic. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1976. ASTM Manual on Presentation of Data and Control Chart Analysis . ASTM STP-ILSD. Committee E-11, Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1983. Standard Practice for Intralaboratory Quality Control Procedures and a Discussion on Reporting Low-Level Data . D4210-83. Committee D-19, Philadelphia, PA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1991. Toxicological Profile for Dieldrin. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1992. Toxicological Profile for Tin and Tin Compounds . U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-2 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1996. Toxicological Profile for Toxaphene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1997. Toxicological Profile for Lead. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1998a. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1998b. Toxicological Profile for Selected PCBs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1998c. Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan (Draft). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
Bache, C.A., W.H. Gutenmann, and D.J. Lisk. 1971. Residues of total mercury and methylmercuric salts in lake trout as a function of age. Science 172:951.
Bahnick, D., C. Sauer, B. Butterworth, and D.W. Kuehl. 1994. A national study of mercury contamination of fish. IV: Analytical methods and results. Chemosphere 29(3):537-546.
Ballschmitter, K., and M. Zell. 1980. Analysis of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by glass capillary gas chromatography, composition of technical Aroclor- and Clophen-PCB mixtures. Fresenius Anal. Chem. 302:20-31.
Barnes, D.G., and J.S. Bellin. 1989. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs). Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Barnes, D.G., and M. Dourson. 1988. Reference dose (RfD): Description and use in health risk assessments. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

. 8:471-486.
Barron, M.G., S. M. Plakas, and P.C. Wilga. 1991. Chlorpyrifos pharmacokinetics and metabolism following intravascular and dietary administration in channel catfish. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol . 108:474-482.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-3 Battelle Memorial Institute. 1975. Environmental Impact Monitoring of Nuclear Power Plants: Source Book of Monitoring Methods . Volume 2. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Washington, DC.

Battelle Memorial Institute. 1989. Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan for the National Status and Tr ends Mussel Watch Program. Collection of Bivalve Molluscs and Superficial Sediments for Coastal U.S. Atlantic and Pacific Locations and Analyses for Organic Chemicals and Toxic Trace Elements

. Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA.
Battelle New England Marine Research Laboratory. 1986. Phase II Mussel Watch Field Manual . NOAA Contract No. 50-DGNC-5-0263. Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA.
Beauchemin, D., K.W.M. Siu, J.W. McLaren, and S.S. Berman. 1989.Determination of arsenic species by high-performance liquid chromatographyinductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 4 (3):285-289.
Benkert, K.A. 1992. Contaminant Assessment of Biota and Sediments in the Albemarle-Pamlico Region. Contract 40190-0-6823. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC.
Bennett, G.W. 1970. Management of Lakes and Ponds . Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Besser, J.M., J.P. Giesy, R.W. Brown, J.M. Buell, and G.A. Dawson. 1996. Selenium bioaccumulation and hazards in a fish community affected by coal fly ash effluent. Ecotox. and Environ. Safety 35:7-15.
Bishop, C.A., P. Ng, R.J. Norstrom, R.J. Brooks, and K. E. Pettit. 1996. Temporal and geographic variation of organochlorine residues in eggs of the common snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina serpentina ) (1981-1991) and comparisons to trends in the herring gull ( Larus argentatus ) in the Great Lakes basin in Ontario, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 31: 512- 524.
Bligh, E.G., and W.J. Dyer. 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37:911-917.
Bloom, N.S. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49(5):1010-1017.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-4 Bonin, J., L. DesGranges, C.A. Bishop, J. Rodrigue, A. Gendron, and J.E. Elliot. 1995. Comparative study of contaminants in the mudpuppy ( Amphibia ) and the common snapping turtle ( Reptilia ), St. Lawrence River, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 28:184-194.
Borneff, J., and H. Kunte. 1965. Carcinogenic substances in water and soil. Part XVII. Concerning the origin and estimation of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water. Arch. Hyg. (Berlin) 149:226-243.
Bos, P.M.J., J.M. Cardinaals, W.M.F. Jongen, and P. Hagel. 1985. Genotoxicity testing of arsenobetaine, the predominant form of arsenic in marine fishery products. Food and Chem. Toxicol. 23(7):669.
Branch, S., L. Ebdon, and P. O’Neill. 1994. Determination of arsenic species in fish by directly coupled high-performance liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Atomic Spec. 9:33.
Broutman, M.A., and D.L. Leonard. 1988. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Brown, R.M., D. Newton, C.J. Pickford, et al. 1990. Human metabolism of arsenobetaine ingested with fish. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 9:41-46.
Bryan, A.M., W.B. Stone, and P.G. Olafsson. 1987. Disposition of toxic PCB congeners in snapping turtle eggs: expressed as toxic equivalents of TCDD. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39(5):791-796.
Bryce, F., S.M. Charbonneau, E. Sandi, and G.K. Tam. 1982. Excretion of a single oral dose of fish-arsenic in man. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28(6):669-673.
Burkhard, L.P., and J.J. Jensen. 1993. I dentification of ammonia, chlorine and diazinon as toxicants in a municipal effluent. Arch. of Environ. Chem. 25:506- 515.
Cagle, F.R. 1946. The growth of the slider turtle, Pseudemys scripta elegans

. Am. Midl. Nat. 35:685-729.
Cagle, F.R. 1948. Growth of turtles in Lake Glendale, Illinois. Copeia 3:197-203.
Cagle, F.R. 1950. The life history of the slider turtle, Pseudemys scripta troostii (Holbrook). Ecol. Monogr. 20:31-54.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-5 California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan . Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, CA.
Cannon, J.R., J.B. S aunders, and R.F. Toia. 1983. Isolation and preliminary toxicological evaluation of arsenobetaine

— the water-soluble arsenical constituent from the hepatopancreas of the western rock lobster. Sci. Total Environ. 31:181-185.
Cantillo, A.Y. 1991. Reference materials for marine science. Sea Tech. May:45-47.
Capuzzo, J.M., J.W. Farrington, G.T. Wallace, and A.E. McElroy. 1990. Chemical Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish: Development of Uniform Testing and Reporting Standards . Project No. NA89-EA-D-00014. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishes of the United States and Canada . 3rd Ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Castanet, J. 1974. Etude histologique des marques squelettiques de croissance chez Vipera aspis (L.) (Ophidia, Viperidae). Zool Scr 3:137-151.
Castanet, J. 1987. La squelettochronologie chez les reptiles. III. Applications. Ann Sci Nat Zool Paris 8:157-172.
Castanet, J. 1994. Age estimation and longevity in reptiles. Gerontology 40:174- 192.
Castanet, J., H. Francillon-Vieillot, F.J. Meunier, and A. de Ricqles. 1993. Bone and individual aging. In Bone, Volume 7 -Bone Growth . B.K. Hall (ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 245-283.
Charbonneau, S.M., K. Spencer, F. Bryce, and E. Sandi. 1978. Arsenic excretion by monkeys dosed with arsenic-containing fish or with inorganic arsenic. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20(4):470-477.
Cochran, W.G. 1963. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Cogliano, J.V. 1998. Assessing cancer risks from environmental PCBs. Environ. Health Perspec. 106 (6):317-323.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America . 2nd Edition. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-6 Crawford, J.K., and S.N. Luoma. 1993. Guidelines for Studies of Contaminants in Biological Tissues for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program

. USGS Open-File Report 92-494. U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA.
Crecelius, E.D. 1978. Modification of the arsenic speciation technique using hydride generation. Anal. Chem 50(6):826-827.
Crecelius, E.A., N.S. Bloom, C.E. Cowan, and E.A. Jenne. 1986. Speciation of Selenium and Arsenic in Natural Waters and Sediments. Vol. 2: Arsenic Speciation . EPRI report #EA-4641.
Crecelius, E.A. 1999. Battelle Pacific NW Labs, Sequim, WA. Personal communication.
Crump, K.S., D.G. Hoel, C.H. Langley, and R. Peto. 1976. F undamental carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk assessment. Cancer Res . 36:2973-2979.
Cullen, W.R., and K.J. Reimer. 1989. Arsenic speciation in the environment. Chem. Rev. 89:713-764.
Cullen, W.R., G.K. Eigendorf, B.U. Nwata, and A. Takatsu. 1990. The quantitation of butyltin and cyclohexyltin compounds in the marine environment of British Columbia. Appl. Organometal. Chem. 4:581-590.
Cunningham, P.A. 1979. The use of bivalve molluscs in heavy metal pollution research: In Marine Pollution: Functional Responses . W.B. Vernberg, F.P. Thurberg, A. Calabrese and F.J. Vernberg (eds.). Academic Press, New York, NY.
Cunningham, P.A. 1998. Summary of state responses to the 1997 Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (LFWA) questionnaire. Prepared for the Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington DC. March 1998.
Cunningham, P.A., J.M. McCarthy, and D. Zeitlin. 1990. Results of the 1989 Census of State Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Programs. Prepared for Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Cunningham, P.A., and E. Sullivan. 1999. Summary of state responses to the 1998 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) questionnaire. Prepared for the Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington DC. June 1999.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-7 Cunningham, P.A., and C.O. Whitaker. 1989. A Survey of the Status of Biomonitoring in State NPDES and Nonpoint Source Monitoring Programs. Prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Czapla, T.C., M.E. Pattillo, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Central Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 7. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Daly, R., V.A. Hacker, and L. Wiegart. 1962. The Lake Trout

— Its Life Histroy, Ecology, and Management . Wisconsin Conservation Department Publication 233. Madison, Wisconsin.
Dawson, V.K., W.H. Gingerich, R.A. Davis, and P.A. Gilderhus. 1991. Rotenone persistence in freshwater ponds: Effects of temperature and sediment adsorption. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:226-231.
Demesmay, C., M. Olle, and M. Porthault. 1994. Arsenic speciation by coupling high-performance liquid chromatography with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Presenius J. Anal. Chem. 348:205-210.
Dobie, J.L. 1971. Reproduction and growth in the alligator snapping turtle, Macroclemys temmincki (Troost). Copeia 4:645-658.
Driscoll, C.T., C. Yan, C.L. Scholfield, R. Munson, and J. Holsapple. 1994. The mercury cycle and fish in the Adir ondack lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 28 (3):136-143.
Dunn, W.J., III, D.L. Stallings, T.R. Schwartz, J.W. Hogan, J.D. Petty, E. Johanson, and S. Wold. 1984. Pattern recognition for classification and determination of polychlorinated biphenyls in environmental samples. Anal. Chem. 56:1308-1313.
Durfee, R.L., G. Contos, F.C. Whitmore, J.D. Borden, E.E. Hackman, and R.A. Westin. 1976. PCBs in the United States; Industrial Use and Environmental Distributions. Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Duston, N.M., C.A. Batdorf, and J.P. Schwartz. 1990. Progress Report: Metal Concentrations in Marine Fish and Shellfish from Boston and Salem Harbors, and Coastal Massachusetts . Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement, Division of Marine Fisheries, Salem, MA.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-8 Ebdon, L., K. Evans, and S. Hill. 1989. The accumulation of organotins in adult and seed oysters from selected estuaries prior to the introduction of U.K. regulations governing the use of tributyltin-based antifouling paints. Sci. Total Environ. 83(1-2):63-84.
Edmonds, J.S., and K.A. Francesconi. 1987. Transformations of arsenic in the marine environment. Experientia 43:553-557.
Edmonds, J.S., and K.A. Francesconi. 1993. Arsenic in seafoods: Human health aspects and regulations. Mar. Pollution Bull. 26(12):665-674.
Eisler, R. 1986. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Biol. Rep. 85(1.7). Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 72 pp.
Eisler, R. 1987. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Biol. Rep. 85 (1.14). Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel MD. 134 pp.
Eisler, R. 1988. Arsenic Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Biological Report 85 (1.12), Contaminant Hazard Reviews, Report No. 12. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Laurel, MD.
Eisler, R. 1989. Tin Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Contaminant Hazard Reviews . Report #15. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Laurel, MD.
Emmett, R.L., S.A. Hinton, S.L. Stone, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries. Volume II: Life History Summaries. ELMR Report No. 8. Strategic Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.
Enlow, D.H., and S.O. Brown. 1969. The bone of reptiles. In Biology of the Reptilia . C. Gans (ed.). Academic Press, New York. Volume 1, pp. 45-80.
Erickson, M.D. (ed.). 1991. Analytical Chemistry of PCBs . OCLC No. 24542805. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Fairey, R., K. Taberski, S. Lamerdin, and M. Petreas. 1997. Organochlorines and other environmental contaminants in muscle tissues of sportfish collected in San Franscico Bay. Mar. Pollution Bull. 34(12):1058-1071.
Farag, A.M., D.F. Woodward, J. N. Goldstein, W. Brumbaugh, and J.S. Meyer. 1998. Concentrations of metals associated with mining waste in sediments, biofilm, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish from the Coeur D ’ Alene River Basin, Idaho. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 34:119-127.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-9 Farrow, D.R., A.S. Pait, and D.J. Basta. 1989. Targeting pesticide hotspots in estuarine watersheds. In: Coastal Zone ’ 89, Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Charleston, SC.

Farm Chemicals Handbook. 1989. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, OH.
Forsyth, D.S., and C. Cleroux. 1991. Determination of butyltin, methyltin and tetraalkyltin in marine food products with gas chromatogr aphy-atomic absorption spectrometry. Talanta 38(9):951-957.
Frazer, N.B., J.L. Greene, and J.W. Gibbons. 1993. Temporal variation in growth rate and age at maturity of male painted turtles, Chrysemys picta. Am. Midl. Nat. 130:314-324.
Friberg, L., and D. Vostal (eds.). 1972. Mercury in the Environment. The Chemical Rubber Company, CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
Frost, D.V. 1967. Arsenicals in biology

— retrospect and prospect. Fed. Proc. 26:194-208.
Frye, F.L. 1994. Reptile Clinician ’ s Handbook: A Compact Clinical and Surgical Reference. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL.
Galbraith, D.A., and R.J. Brooks. 1987. Addition of annual growth lines in adult snapping turtles, Chelydra serpentina

. J. Herpetol. 21:359-363.
Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American Oyster ( Crassotrea virginica Gmelin ). Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Volume 64. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Gardner, A.M., and K.D. White. 1990. Polychlorinated dibenzofurans in the edible portion of selected fish. Chemosphere 21 (1-2):215-222.
George, G. 1987. The current status of the alligator snapping turtle, Macroclemys temmincki , with a review of its natural history. In: Proc. 11th Inter. Herpetol. Symp. Rosenberg, M. (ed.). pp 75-81.
Gibbons, J.W. 1968. Population structure and survivorship in the painted turtle, Chrysemys picta

. Copeia 2:260-268.
Gibbons, J.W. 1976. Aging phenomena in reptiles. In Special Review of Experimental Aging Research. M.F. Elias, B.E. Eleftheriou, and P.K. Elias (eds.). Experimental Aging Research, Bar Harbor, Maine. pp. 454-475.
Gibbons, J.W. 1988. The management of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals in North America: The need for an environmental attitude10. LITERATURE CITED

10-10 adjustment. Proc. Symp: Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in North America . July 19-21, 1988. Flagstaff, AZ. pp. 4-10.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring

. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY. 320 pp.
Gingerich, W.H., and J.J. Rach. 1985. Uptake, biotransformation, and elimination of rotenone by bluegills ( Lepomis macrochirus ). Aquatic Toxicol. 6:179-196.
Glaser, J.A., D.L. Forest, G.D. McKee, S. Quave, and W.L. Budde. 1981. Trace analyses for wastewaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15:1425-1450.
Glass, G.E., J.A. Sorenson, K.W. Schmidt, and G.R. Rapp. 1990. New source identification of mercury contamination in the Great Lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24:1059-1069.
Goede, R.W., and B.A. Barton. 1990. Organismic indices and an autopsy-based assessment as indicators of health and condition of fish. pp. 93-108. In: American Fisheries Society Symposium, 8. Biological Indicators of Stress in Fish . S.M. Adams (ed.) American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Goldstein, R.M., M.E. Brigham, and J.C. Stauffer. 1996. Comparison of mercury concentrations in liver muscle, whole bodies, and composites of fish from the Red River of the North. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci . 53: 244-252.
Golub, M.S., J.M. Donald, and J.A. Reyes. 1991. Reproductive toxicity of commercial PCB Mixtures: LOAELS and NOAELS from animal studies. Environ. Health Perspect. 94:245-253.
Greene, R.W. 1992. Comparison of Aroclor and Chlorobiphenyl Content in Striped Bass from the Lower Delaware River . Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Greene, R.W. 1999. Chemical Contaminants in Finfish from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and Implications to Human Health Risk . Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Greenburg, A.E., L.S. Clersceri, and A.D. Eaton (eds.). 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater . 18th edition. American Public Health Association and American Water Works Association, Washington, DC. 1268 pp.
Grimmer, G., H. Bohnke, and H. Borwitzky. 1978. Profile analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sewage sludge by gas chromatography. Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem. 289:91-95.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-11 Gunderson, D.R., and I.E. Ellis. 1986. Development of a plumb staff beam trawl for sampling demersal fauna. Fisheries Rev. 4:35-41.
Hammer, D.A. 1969. Parameters of a marsh snapping turtle population Lacreek Refuge, South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manag. 33:996-1005.
Hansen, S.H., E.H. Larsen, G. Pritzi, and C. Cornett. 1992. Separation of sevenarsenic compounds by high-performance liquid chromatography with online detection by hydrogen-argon flame atomic absorption spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J. Analy. Atomic Spectrom. 7:629.
Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1978. Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Volume III Aphredoderidae through Rachycentkidae . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Harris, S.G., and B.L. Harper. 1997. A Native American exposure scenario. Risk Analysis 17(6):789-795.
Harper, B.L., and S .G. Harris. 1999. Tribal Technical Issues in Risk Reduction Through Fish Advisories. Joint EPA/American Fisheries Society Meeting. October 15-17, Alexandria, VA.
Hayes, M.L. 1983. Active capture techniques. In: Fisheries Techniques . L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson (eds.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp. 123-146.
Hayes, W.J., and E.R. Laws. 1991. Handbook of Pesticide Toxiclogy , Vols. 1-3. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.
HEAST (Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables). 1997. Health Effects Summary Tables . EPA 540-R-97-036. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Res ponse, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Hebert, C.E., V. Glooschenko, G.D. Haffner, and R. Lazar. 1993. Or ganic contaminants in snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina ) populations from southern Ontario, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24:35-43.
Hebert, C.E., and K.A. Keenleyside. 1995. To normalize or not to normalize? Fat is the question. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14(5):801-807.
Helwig, D.D., and M.E. Hora. 1983. Polychlorinated biphenyl, mercury and cadmium concentrations in Minnesota snapping turtles. Bull. Contamin. Toxicol. 30:186-190.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-12 Henry, K.S., K. Kannan, B.W. Nagy, N.R. Kevern, J.J. Zabik, and J.P. Giesy. 1998. Concentrations and Hazard Assessment of Organochlorine Contaminants and Mercury in Smallmouth Bass from a Remote Lake in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 34:81- 96.
Hesse, J. 1991. Michigan Department of Public Health. Personal communication.
Hesse, J.L. 1976. Polychlorinated bi phenyl us age and sources of loss to the environment. In: National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls . J.L. Buckly et al. (eds.). QV 633 N277c 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Hodges, L. 1977. Environmental Pollution. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Holder, J.W. 1986. The Assessment of the Carcinogenicity of Dicofol (Kelthane), DDT, DDE, and DDD (TDE) . EPA-600/6-86/001. Carcinogen Assessment Group. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
Holmes, D.D. 1984. Clinical Laboratory Animal Medicine

— An Introduction . The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Hora, M.E. 1981. Reduction of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in carp (Cyprinus carpio) fillets through skin removal. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol . 26: 364-366.
HSDB (Hazardous Substance Data Bank). 1999. Nati onal Library of Medicine. Toxicology Information Program, Bethesda, MD. Please note that 1999 is the year that HSDB was searched and is not necessarily the year that the HSDB file was updated for the specific information. In some cases, the HSDB file update may have occurred many years earlier.
Hubert, W.A. 1983. Passive capture techniques. pp. 95-122. In: Fisheries Techniques . L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson (eds.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Huckins, J.N., T.R. Schwartz, J.D. Petty, and L.M. Smith. 1988. Determination, fate, and potential significance of PCBs in fish and sediment with emphasis on selected AHH-inducing congeners. Chemosphere 17(10):1995-2016.
Hueter, R.E., W.G. Fong, G. Henderson, et al. 1995. Methylmercury concentration in shark muscle by species, size, and distribution of sharks in Florida Coastal waters. In: Pocella D.B., and B. Wheatley (eds).10. LITERATURE CITED

10-13 Mercury as a Global Pollutant . Proceedings of the Third International Conference, British Columbia, Canada, July 1994. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. pp. 893-399.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1987. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans

. Supplement 7. World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/iris (Please note that 1999 is the year that IRIS was searched and is not the year that the IRIS file was updated for the specific chemical. In some cases, the IRIS file update may have occurred many years earlier).
Jacobs, H.L., H.D. Kahn, K.A. Stralka, and B. Phan. 1998. Estimates of per capita fish consumption in the U.S. based on the continuing survey of food intake by individuals (CSFII). Risk Anal. 18(3): 283-291.
Jacobson, S.W., G.G. Fein, J.L. Jacobson, P.M. Schwartz, and J.K. Douter. 1985. The effects of intrauterine PCB exposure on visual recognition memory. Child Dev. 56:853-60.
Jacobson, J.L., S.W. Jacobson, and H.E. Humphrey. 1990. Effects of in utero exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and related contaminants on cognitive functioning in young children. J. Pediatrics 116(1):38-45.
Jansson, B., and U. Widequist. 1983. Identification of toxaphene (PCC) and chlordane in biological samples by NCI mass spectrometry. Inter. J. Environ. Analy. Chem. 13:309-322.
Jearld, A. 1983. Age determination. In: Fisheries Techniques . L.A. Nielsen and D. Johnson (eds.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp. 301- 324.
Johnson, M.G. 1987. Trace element loadings to sediments of fourteen Ontario lakes and correlation in fish. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 44:3-13.
Jury, SH., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in North Atlantic Estuaries . ELMR Rep. No. 13. NOAA/NOS Strategic Envirionmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Kaise, T., S. Watanabe, and K. Itoh. 1985. The acute toxicity of arsenobetaine. Chemosphere 14:1327-1332.
Kaiser, K.L.E. 1978. The rise and fall of mirex. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12:520-528.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-14 Kannan, N., S. Tanabe, M. Ono, and R. Tatsukawa. 1989. Critical evaluation of polychlorinated biphenyl toxicity in terrestrial and marine mammals: increasing impact of non-ortho and mono-ortho coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls from land to ocean. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18(6):850- 857.
Kannan, K., R.G. Smith Jr., R.F. Lee, H.L. Windom, P.T. Heitmuller, J.M. Macauley, J.K. Summers. 1998. Distribution of total mercury and methyl mercury in water, sediment, and fish from south Florida estuaries. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 34:109-118.
Keith, L.H. 1991a. Report Results Right! Part 1. Chemtech June:352-356.
Keith, L.H. 1991b. Report Results Right! Part 2. Chemtech August:486-489.
Keith, L.H., W. Crommett, J. Deegan, Jr., R.A. Libby, J.K. Taylor, and G. Wentler. 1983. Principles of environmental analysis. Analy. Chem. 55:1426-1435.
Kidwell, J.M., L.J. Phillips, and G. F. Birchard. 1995. Comparative analyses of contaminant levels in bottom feeding and predatory fish using the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program Data. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Tox. 54:919-923.
Kimbrough, R.D., and A.A. Jensen. 1989. Topics in Environmental Health: Halogenated Biphenyls, Terphenyls, Naphthalenes, Dibenzodioxins and Related Products. Vol. 4, 2nd Edition. Elsevier, North Holland, NY.
Kish, L. 1965. Survey Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Klaassen, C.D., M.D. Amdur, and J. Doull (eds.). 1986. Casarett and Doull ’ s Toxicology, The Basic Science of Poisons. 3rd edition. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Klaassen C.D. (ed.). 1996. Casarett and Doull ’ s Toxicology, The Basic Science of Poisons. 5th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Korach, K.S. P. Sarver, K. Chae, J.A. McLachlan, and J.D. McKinney. 1 988. Estrogen receptor-binding activity of polychlorinated hydroxybiphenyls: conformationally restricted structural probes. Mol. Pharmacol. 33:120- 126.
Krahn, M.M., L.D. Rhodes, M.S. Myers, L.K. Moore, W.D. MacLeod, and D.C. Malins. 1986. Associations between metabolites of aromatic compounds in bile and the occurrence of hepatic lesions in English sole ( Parophyrs vetulus ) from Puget Sound, Washington. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15:61-67.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-15 Krahn, M.M., C.A. Wigren, R.W. Pearce, L.K. Moore, R.G. Bogar, W.D. MacLeod, Jr., S.L. Chan, and D.W. Brown. 1988. Standard Analytical Procedures for the NOAA National Analytical Facility. New HPLC Cleanup and Revised Extraction Procedures for Organic Contaminants. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS F/NWC-153. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 52 pp.
Kubiak, T.J., H.J. Harris, L.M. Smith, T.R. Schwartz, D.L. Stalling, J.A. Trick, L. Sileo, D.E. Docherty, and T.C. Erdman. 1989. Microcontaminants and reproductive impairment of the Forster ’ s tern on Green Bay, Lake Michigan

— 1983. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 18(5):706-727.
Kuehl, D.W., B. Butterworth, and P.J. Marquis. 1994. A national study of chemical residues in fish III: Study results. Chemosphere 29 (3): 523-535.
Kurland, L.T., S.N. Faro, and H. Siedler. 1960. Minamata Disease: The outbreak of a neurological disorder in Minamata, Japan, and its relationship to the ingestion of seafood contaminated by mercuric compounds. World Neurol. 1:370-391.
Kutz, F.W., S.C. Strassman, C. R. Stroup, U.C. Carra, C.C. Leininger, D.L. Watts, and C.M. Sparacino. 1985. The human body burden of mirex in the southeastern United States. Toxicol. Environ. Health 15:385-394.
Lake, J.L., R. McKinney, C.A. Lake, F.A. Osterman, and J. Heltshe. 1995. Comparisons of patterns of polychlorinated biphenyls congeners in water, sediment, and indigenous organisms from New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts. Arch. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol . 29(2):207-220.
Lamb, T., J.W. Bickham, J.W. Gibbons, M.J. Smolen, and S. McDowell. 1991. Genetic damage in a population of slider turtles ( Trachemys scripta ) inhabiting a radioactive reservoir. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:138-142.
Legler, J.M. 1960. Natural history of the ornate box turtle, Terrapene ornata ornata Agassiz, University of Kansas. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 11:527-669.
Leonard, D.L., M.A. Broutman, and K. E. Harkness. 1989. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast of the United States. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Leonard, D.L., and E.A. Slaughter. 1990. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the West Coast of the United States. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-16 Li, M. 1975. Pollution in nation ’ s estuaries originating from the agricultural use of pesticides. In: Estuarine Pollution Control and Assessment. Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. pp. 451-466.
Lonky, E., J. Reihman, T. Darvill, J. Mather, and H. Daly. 1996. Neonatal behavioral assessment scale performance in humans influenced by maternal consumption of environmentally contaminated Lake Ontario fish. J. Great Lakes Res. 22(2):198-212.
Lowe, T.P., T.W. May, W.G. Brumbaugh, and D.A. Kane. 1985. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: Concentrations of seven elements in freshwater fish, 1978-1981. Arch. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 14:363-388.
Lowenstein, G.G., and D.R. Young. 1986. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality, Benthic Surveillance Project: Cycle III Field Manual . NOAA Tech. Memorandum NOS OMA 28. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Luten, J.R., G. Riekwel-Booy, and A. Rauchbaar. 1982. Occurrence of arsenic in plaice ( Pleuronectes platessa ), nature of organoarsenic compound present and its excretion by man. Environ. Health Perspect. 45:165-170.
Maack, L., and W.C. Sonzogni. 1988. Analysis of polychlorobiphenyl congeners in Wisconsin fish. Arch. Environ. Toxicol. 17(6):711-719.
MacKenzie, M.J., and J.V. Hunter. 1979. Sources and fates of aromatic compounds in urban stormwater runoff. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 13(2):179-183.
MacLeod W., Jr., D. Brown, A. Friedman, O. Maynes, and R. Pierce. 1985. Standard Analytical Procedures of the NOAA National Analytical Facility, 1984-85, Extractable Toxic Organic Compounds . NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-64. Prepared for the National Status and Trends Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, S.L. Chan, M.S. Myers, J.T. Landahl, P.G. Prohaska, A.J. Friedman, L.D. Rhodes, D.G. Burrows, W.D. Gronlund, and H.O. Hodgins. 1984. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases of bottom-dwelling fish in Puget Sound, WA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:705-713.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-17 Malins, D.C., M.M. Krahn, M.S. Myers, L.D. Rhodes, D.W. Brown, C.A. Krone, B.B. McCain, and S.L. Chan. 1985. Toxic chemicals in sediments and biota from a creosote-polluted harbor: Relationships with hepatic neoplasms and other hepatic lesions in English sole ( Parophrys vetulus ). Carcinogenesis 6:1463-1469.
Marsh, D.O. 1987. Dose-response relationships in humans: Methyl mercury epidemics in Japan and Iraq. In: The Toxicity of Methyl Mercury. C.U. Eccles and Z. Annau (eds). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Marsh, D.O., T.W. Clarkson, C. Cox, G.J. Meyers, L. Amin-Zaki, and S. Al-Tikriti. 1987. Fetal methylmercury poisoning: relationship between concentration in single strands of maternal hair and child effects. Arch. Neurol. 44:1017- 1022.
Martin, R.C., D.G. Dixon, R.J. Maguire, P.V. Hodson, and R. J. Tkacz. 1989. Acute toxicity, uptake, depuration, and tissue distribution of tri-n-butyltin in rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri. Aquatic Toxicol. 15:37-52.
May, T.W., and G.L. McKinney. 1981. Cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic and selenium concentrations in freshwater fish, 1976-1977

— National Pesticide Monitoring Program. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 15(1):14-38
McConnell, E.E. 1980. In: Topics in Environmental Health: Halogenated Biphenyls, Terphenyls, Naphthalenes, Dibenzodioxins and Related Products . R.D. Kimbrough (ed.). Elsevier, North Holland, New York, NY. pp. 109-150.
McFarland, V.A., and J.U. Clarke. 1989. Environmental occurrence, abundance, and potential toxicity of polychlorinated bi phenyl c ongeners: considerations for a congener-specific analysis. Environ. Health Perspect

. 81:225-239.
Mearns, A.J., and M.J. Allen. 1978. Use of Small Trawls in Coastal Biological Surveys . Final Report. Prepared for Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo, CA.

The Merck Index. 1989. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals

. 11th Edition. S.Budavari, ed., Merck and Company, Inc., Rahway, NJ.
Mes, J., and D. Weber. 1989. Non-orthochlorine substituted coplanar polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in Canadian adipose tissue, breast milk, and fatty foods. Chemosphere 19(8-9):1357-1365.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-18 Miller, G.T. 1979. Living in the Environment. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.
Mills, D. 1971. Salmon and Trout: A Resource, its Ecology, Conservation, and Management . Oliver and Boyd Publishers, Edinburgh, Canada.
Minnesota Department of Health. 1994. Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory. Minneapolis, MN.
Mix, M.C. 1986. Cancerous diseases in aquatic animals and their association with environmental pollutants: A critical literature review. Mar. Environ. Res. 20:1-141.
Monaco, M.E., D.M. Nelson, T.C. Czapla, and M.E. Patillo. 1989. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Texas Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 3. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Monaco, M.E., D.M. Nelson, R.L. Emmett, and S.A. Hinton. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in West Coast Estuaries. Volume I: Data Summaries. ELMR Report No. 4. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Moore, J.W., and Ramamoorthy, S. 1984. Organic Chemicals in Natural Waters. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 289 pp.
Morris, C.R., and J.R.P. Cabral (eds.). 1986. Hexachlorobenzene: Proceedings of an international symposium. IARC Scientific Publication No. 77 . World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Mullin, M.D., C.M. Pochini, S. McCrindle, M. Romkes, S.H. Safe, and L.M. Safe. 1984. High-resolution PCB analysis: Synthesis and chromatographic properties of all 209 PCB congeners. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:468-476.
Multistate Fish and Wildlife Information Systems. 1990. Second Annual Progress Report (July 1-July 30, 1990) . Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Virginia Polytechnical Institute, Blacksburg, VA.
Murchelano, R.A. 1982. Some pollution-associated diseases and abnormalities of marine fish and shellfish: A perspective for the New York Bight. In: Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. G.F. Mayer (ed.). Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC. pp. 327-346.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-19 Murphy, D. 1993. Maryland Department of Environment, Water Quality, Toxic Division. Personal communication.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1976. Selenium. Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1977. Arsenic . Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1991. Seafood Safety. Committee on Evaluation of the Safety of Fishing Products, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. National Research Council, Washington, DC.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1987. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Pacific Coast, 1986. Current Fishery Statistics Number 8393. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
NCI (National Cancer Institute). 1978. Bioassay of Dicofol for Possible Carcinogenicity . NCI Carcinogenesis Technical Report Series #90. Rockville, MD.
Neff, J.M. 1979. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environment: Sources, Fates and Biological Effects . Applied Science Publishers, Ltd, London, England.
Neff, J.M. 1985. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocar bons. In: Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology. G.M. Rand and S.R. Petrocelli (eds.). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC.
Nelson, J.M. (ed.). 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries, Vol. 1: Data Summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 10. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, MD.
Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, and L. Coston-Clements. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Southeast Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 9. Strategic Assessment Division, National Oc eanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-20 NESCAUM (Northeast States and Eastern Canadian Provinces). 1998. Mercury Study, A Framework for Action . Boston, MA.
Neumann, C.M., K.W. Kaufman, and D.J. Gilroy. 1997. Methylmercury in Fish from Owyhee Reservoir in Southeast Oregon: Scientific Uncertainty and Fish Advisories. Sci. Total Environ .:205-214.
New York State Department of Health. 1994. Health Advisory

— Chemicals in Sportfish and Game 1994-1995 . #40820042. Division of Environmental Health Assessments, Albany, NY.
Nicholls, T.P., R. Perry, and J.N. Lester. 1979. The influence of heat treatment on the metallic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content of sewage sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 12:137-150.
Niimi, A.J. 1987. Biological half-lives of chemicals in fishes. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 99:1-46. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Nimmo, D.R. 1985. Pesticides. In: Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, G.M. Rand and S.R. Petrocelli (eds.). Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC.
Nisbet, I.C.T., and P.K. LaGoy. 1992. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 16:290-300.
NOAA (National Oc eanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1987. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality

— Progress Report: A Summary of Selected Data on Chemical Contaminants in Tissues Collected During 1984, 1985 and 1986. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 38. U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1989a. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality - Progress Report: A Summary of Selected Data on Tissue Contamination from the First Three Years (1986-1988) of the Mussel Watch Project. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 49. U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1989b. Standard Analytical Procedures of the NOAA National Analytical Facility. 2nd ed. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS F/NWC-92, 1985-86. National Status and Trends Program, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-21 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1992. Standard and Reference Materials for Marine Science . Third Edition. U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, Maryland.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993a. Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program, National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992. Volume II. Comprehensive Descriptions of Complementary Measurements. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71. Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. July.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993b. Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program, National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992. Volume III. Compr ehensive Descriptions of Elemental Analytical Met hods. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71. Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. July.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993c. Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program, National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992. Volume IV. Comprehensive Descriptions of Trace Organic Analytical Methods. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71. Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. July.
Norstrom, R.J. 1988. In: Hazards, Decontamination and Replacement of Polychlorinated Biphenyls . J.P. Crine (ed.). Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, NY.
NPCA (National Paint and Coatings Association). 1988. Annual Report. Washington, DC.
Nriagu, J.O., and M.S. Simmons (eds.). 1990. Food Contamination from Environmental Sources . J. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Olafsson, P.G., A.M. Bryan, B. Bush, and W. Stone. 1983. Snapping turtles

— A biological screen for PCBs. Chemosphere 12 (11/12):1525-1532.
Olafsson, P.G., A.M. Bryan, and W. Stone. 1987. PCB congener specific analysis: A critical evaluation of toxic levels in biota. Chemosphere 16 (10-12):2585-2593.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-22 Oliver, B.G., and A.J. Niimi. 1988. Trophodynamic analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario ecosystem. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22(4):388-397.
Patillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Volume II: Species Life History Summaries . ELHR Report No. 14. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Peabody, F.E. 1961. Annual growth zones in vertebrates (living and fossil). J. Morphol. 108:11-62.
Penrose, W.R. 1974. Arsenic in the marine and aquatic environments: Analysis, occurrence and significance. C.R.C. Crit. Rev. in Environ. Contam. 4:465- 482.
Pflieger, W.H. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri . Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.
Phillips, D.J.H. 1980. Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators. Pollution Monitoring Series. Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London, England.
Phillips, P.T. 1988. California State Mussel Watch

— Ten Year Data Summary (1977-1987) Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 87-3 . State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, CA.
Pillay, K.K.S., C.C. Thomas, and J.W. Kaminski. 1969. Neutron activation analysis of the selenium content of fossil fuels. Nucl. Appl. Technol. 7:478-483.
Piotrowski, J.K., and M.J. Inskip. 1981. Health Effects of Mercury; A Technical Report (1981). MARC Report Number 24. Chelsea College, University of London. 82 pp.
Pitt, T.K., R. Wells, and W.D. McKone. 1981. A critique of research otter trawl surveys by the St. John ’ s Research and Resource Services. Canadian Fish Aquatic Sci. Spec. Publ. 58:42-61.
Poland, A., and J.C. Knutson. 1982. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin and related halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons: Examination of the mechanism of toxicity. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol . 22:517-554.
Pollock, G. 1993. California Environmental Protection Agency. Personal communication.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-23 Pritchard, P.C.H. 1989. The Alligator Snapping Turtle: Biology and Conservation . Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI. 104 pp.
Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1990a (revised). Recommended protocols for station positioning in Puget Sound. In: Recommended Protocols and Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound . Prepared by PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA. Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. (Looseleaf)
Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1990b (revised). Recommen ded protocols for sampling soft-bottom demersal fishes by beach seine and trawl in Puget Sound. In: Recommended Protocols and Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound . Prepared by PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA. Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. (Looseleaf)
Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1990c (revised). Recommended protocols for fish pathology studies in Puget Sound. In: Recommended Protocols and Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound . Prepared by PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA. Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. (Looseleaf)
Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1990d (revised). Recommended guidelines for measuring organic compounds in Puget Sound sediments and tissue samples. In: Recommended Protocols and Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound . Prepared by PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA. Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. (Looseleaf)
Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1990e (revised). Recommended protocols for measuring metals in Puget Sound water, sediment, and tissue samples. In: Recommended Protocols and Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound . Prepared by PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA. Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. (Looseleaf)
Randall, R.C., H. Lee II, R.J. Ozretich, J.L. Lake, and R.J. Pruell. 1991. Evaluation of selected lipid methods for normalizing pollutant bioaccumulation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1431-1436.
Rappe, C., H.R. Buser, D.L. Stalling, L.M. Smith, and R.C. Dougherty. 1981. Identification of polychlorinated dibenzofurans in environmental samples. Nature 292:524-526.
Reed, M.S., and C.F. Rabeni. 1989. Characteristics of an unexploited smallmouth bass population in a Missouri Ozark stream. Am. J. Fish. Man. 9:420-426.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-24 Reinert, R.E., B.A. Knuth, M.A. Kamrin, and Q.J. Stober. 1991. Risk assessment, risk management, and fish consumption advisories in the United States. Fisheries (6):5-12.
Robinson, J.C., W.S. Pease, D.S. Albright, et al. 1994. Pesticides in the Home and Community: Health Risks and Policy Alternatives. California Policy Seminar Report. Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Rohlf, F.J., H.R. Akcakaya, and S.P. Ferraro. 1991. Optimizing Composite Sampling Protocols . Contract 68-CO-0051. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Applied Biomathematics, Corvallis, OR.
Rosen, B. 1970. Shell disease of aquatic crustaceans. pp. 409-415. In: A Symposium of Diseases of Fish and Shellfishes. S.F. Sniezko (ed.). Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 5. American Fisheries Society, Washington, DC.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1993. National Listing of State Fish and Shellfish Consumption Advisories and Bans. Prepared for Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Ryan, J.J., P.Y. Lau, and J.A. Hardy. 1986. 2,3,7,8, Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and related dioxans and furans in snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina ) tissues from the upper St. Lawrence River. Chemosphere 15 (5):537-548.
Rylander, L., U. Stromberg, and L. Hagmar. 1998. Agreement between reported fish consumption obtained by two interviews and its impact on the results in a reproduction study. European J. Epidemiol. 14(1):93-97.
Sabbioni, E., M. Fischbach, G. Pozzi, R. Pietra, M. Gallorini, and J.L. Piette. 1991. Cellular retention, toxicity and carcinogenic potential of seafood arsenic. I. Lack of cytoxicity and transforming activity of arsenobetaine in the BAL3/3T3 cell line. Carcinogenesis 12:1287-1291.
Safe, S. 1985. CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs): Biochemistry, Toxicology and Mechanism of Action . CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
Safe, S. 1990. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and related compounds: Environmental and mechanistic considerations which support the development of toxic equivalency factors (TEFs). Critical Reviews in Toxicology 21(1):51-88.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-25 Safe, S., B. Astroff, M. Harris, T. Zacharewski, R. Dickerson, M. Romkes, and L. Biegel. 1991. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and related compounds as antiestrogens: Characterization and mechanism of action. Pharmacology and Toxicology 69:400-409.
Saleh, M.A. 1991. Toxaphene: Chemistry, biochemistry, toxicity, and environmental fate. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 118:1-66.
Sax, I.N. 1984. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 6th Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Schmitt, C.J., and W.G. Brumbaugh. 1990. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc in U.S. freshwater fish, 1978-1984. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:731-747.
Schmitt, C.J., and S.E. Finger. 1987. The effects of sample preparation on measured concentrations of eight elements in edible tissues of fish from streams contaminated by lead mining: Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:185-207.
Schmitt, C.J., M.A. Ribick, J.K. Ludke, and T.W. May. 1983. National Pesticide Monitoring Program: Organochlorine Residues in Freshwater Fish, 1976- 1979. Resource Publication 152. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Schmitt, C.J., J.L. Zajicek, and P.H. Peterman. 1990. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: Residues of organochlorine chemicals in U.S. freshwater fish, 1976-1984. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:748-781.
Schmitt, C.J., J.L. Zajicek, and M.A. Ribick. 1985. National Pesticide Monitoring Program: Residues of organochlorine chemicals in freshwater fish, 1980-1981. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:225-260.
Schwartz, T.R., R.D. Campbell, D.L. Stalling, R.L. Little, J.D. Petty, J.W. Hogan, and E.M. Kaiser. 1984. Laboratory data base for isomer-specific determination of polychlorinated biphenyls. Anal. Chem. 56:1303-1308.
Schwartz, T.R., D.L. Stalling, and C.L. Rice. 1987. Are polychlorinated biphenylresidues adequately described by Aroclor mixture equivalents? Isomerspecific principal components analysis of such residues in fish and turtles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21(1):72-76.
Schwartz, T.R., D.E. Tilitt, K.P. Feltz, and P.H. Peterman. 1993. Determination of mono- and non-O, Omin-chlorine substituted polychlorinated biphenyls in Aroclors and environmental samples. Chemosphere 26(8):1443-1461.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-26 Scott, D.E., F.W. Whicker, and J.W. Gibbons. 1986. Effect of season on the retention of 137 Cs and 90 Sr by the yellow-bellied slider turtle ( Pseudemys scripta)

. Can. J. Zool. 64:2850-2853
Sexton, O.J. 1959. A method of estimating the age of painted turtles for use in demographic studies. Ecology 40:716-718.
Shain, W., B. Bush, and R. Seegal. 1991. Neurotoxicity of polychlorinated biphenyls: structure-activity relationship of individual congeners. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 111:33-42.
Sheffy, T.B. 1987. A Review of Mercury in Wisconsin ’ s Environment. Recommendations for Studying and Identifying the Cause of the Problem. Bureau of Air Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Short, J.W., and F.P. Thrower. 1987a. Accumulations of butyltins in muscle tissue of chinook salmon reared in sea pens treated with tri-n-butyltin. Aquaculture 61:181-192.
Short, J.W., and F.P. Thrower. 1987b. Toxicity of tri-n-butyltin to chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, adapted to seawater. Aquaculture 61:193-200.
Siewicki, T.C. 1981. Tissue retention of arsenic in rats fed witch flounder or cacodylic acid. J. Nutr. 111:602-609.
Sinderman, C.J. 1983. An examination of some relationships between pollution and disease. Rapp. P. V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 182:37-43.
Sinderman, C.J., F.B. Bang, N.O. Christensen, V. Dethlefsen, J.C. Harshbarger, J.R. Mitchell, and M.F. Mulcahy. 1980. The role and value of pathology in pollution effects monitoring programs. Rapp. P. V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 179:135-151.
Sinderman, C.J., and A. Rosenfield. 1967. Principal diseases of commercially important marine bivalve mollusca and crustacea. Fish. Bull. 66:335-385.
Skerfving, S. B.G. Svensson, L. Asplund, and L. Hagmar. 1994. Exposure to mixtures and cogeners of polychlorinated biphenyls. Clinical Chemistry
, 40(7):1409-1415.
Skerfving, S. 1988. Mercury in women exposed to methylmercury through fish consumption, and in their newborn babies and breast milk. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 41:475-482.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-27 Skoog, D.A. 1985. Principles of Instrumental Analysis. 3rd ed. Saunders Press, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 270-277, 282-284, 303-304.
Sloan, K., and J.E. Lovich. 1995. Exploitation of the alligator snapping turtle, Macroclemys temminckii , in Louisiana: A case study. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 1(3):221-222.
Smith, L.M. 1981. Carbon dispersed on glass fibers as an adsorbent for contaminant enrichment and fractionation. Anal. Chem. 53:2152-2154.
Smith, R.L. 1985. Guidance on Sampling Aquatic Organisms for Tissue Analyses during FY 1986 . Environmental Services Division, Region 3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.
Smith, L.M., T.R. Schwartz, and K. Feltz. 1990. Determination and occurrence of AHH-active polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dioxion and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran in Lake Michigan sediment and biota, the question of their relative toxicological significance. Chemosphere 21(9):1063-1085.
Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, and M.G. Wolman. 1987. Water quality trends in the nation ’ s rivers. Science 235:1607-1615.
Spry, D.S., and J.G. Wiener. 1991. Metal availability and toxicity to fish in lowalkalinity lakes: a critical review. Environ. Pollut. 71(2-4):243-304.
Stalling, D.L., T.R. Schwartz, W.J. Dunn III, and S. Wold. 1987. Classification of polychlorinated biphenyl residues. Anal. Chem. 59:1853-1859.
Stegeman, J.J., and J.J. Lech. 1991. Cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase systems in aquatic species: carcinogen metabolism and biomarkers for carcinogen and pollutant exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. 90:101- 109.
Stephenson, M.D., and D.R. Smith. 1988. Determination of tributyltin in tissues and sediments by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 60:696-698.
Stober, Q.J. 1991. Guidelines for Fish Sampling and Tissue Pr eparation for Bioaccumulative Contaminants . Environmental Services Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Stone, W.B., E. Kiviat, and S.A. Butkas. 1980. Toxicants in snapping turtles. New York Fish and Game J. 27 (1):39-50.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-28 Stone, S.L., T.A. Lowery, J.D. Field, C.D. Williams, D.M. Nelson, S.H. Jury, M.E. Monaco, and L. Andreasen. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Mid-Atlantic Estuaries . ELMR Rep. No. 12. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Swackhamer, D. 1993. University of Minnesota. Personal communication.
Tanabe, S., N. Kannan, A. Subramanian, S. Watanabe, and R. Tatsukawa. 1987. Environ. Poll. 47:147-163.
Taylor, J.K. 1985. Standard Reference Materials: Handbook for SRM Users

. NBS Special Publication 260-100. Center for Analytical Chemistry, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.

Tetra Tech. 1986. Evaluation of Survey Positioning Method for Near-Shore and Estuarine Waters . Prepared for Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Bellevue, WA.

Tetra Tech. 1995. Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish in the Lower Columbia River. Draft report prepared for the Lower Columbia Bi-State Program. Redmond, WA.

Texas Water Commission. 1990. Texas Tissue Sampling Guidelines . Texas Water Commission, Austin, TX.
Tilson, H.A., J.L. Jacobson, and W.J. Rogan. 1990. Polychlorinated biphenyls and the developing nervous systems: Cross-species comparisons. Neurotox. Teratol. 12:239-248.
Todd, B. L., and C.F. Rabeni. 1989. Movement and habitat use by streamdwelling smallmouth bass. Transact. Am. Fish. Soc . 118 (3):229-242.
Tollefson, Linda. 1989. Methylmercury in fish: Assessment of risk for U.S. consumers. In: The Risk Assessment of Environmental and Human Health Hazards: A Textbook of Case Studies. Dennis J. Paustenback (ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Toy, K.A., N.L. Polissar, S. Liao, and G.D. Mittelstaedt. 1996. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes of the Puget Sound Region . Tulalip Tribes, Department of Environment, Marysville, WA.
Tsuda, T., H. Nakanishi, S. Aoki, and J. Takebayashi. 1988. Bioconcentration and metabolism of butyltin compounds in carp. Water Res. 22:647-651.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-29 Tsuda, T., M. Kojima, H. Harada, et al. 1997. Acute toxicity, accumulation and excretion of organophosphorous insecticides and their oxidation products in killifish. Chemosphere 35: 939-49, 1997.
USDA/ARS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service)

. 1998. 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Foods Intakes by Individuals and 1994- 1996 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey. CD-ROM, accession number PB-98- 500457. (Available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Phone: 203-487- 4650.)
U.S. DOC (Department of Commerce). 1999a. General Endangered and Threatened Marine Species, Permits for Incidental Taking of Species . 50 CFR Part 222, Section 222.307. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. DOC (Department of Commerce). 1999b. General Endangered and Threatened Marine Species, Permits for Listed Species of Sea Turtles Involving the US Fish and Wildlife Service . 50 CFR Part 222, Section 222.309. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. DOI (Department of the Interior). 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Permits for Scientific Purposes, Enhancement of Propagation or Survival, or for Incidental Taking . 50 CFR Part 17, Section 17.22. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1978. Metal Bioaccumulation in Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. EPA-600/3-78-103. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1979a. Health Assessment Document for Cadmium. EPA-600/8-79-003. Environmental Standards and Criteria, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1979b. Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Endrin. EPA-440/5-80-047. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980b. Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans

. QAMS-005/80. Quality Assurance Management Staff, Washington, DC.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-30 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Interim Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Priority Pollutants in Sediments and Fish Tissue . EPA-600/4-81-055. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982a. Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

. EPA-600/4-82-057. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982b. Arsenic. In: Intermedia Priority Pollutant Guidance Documents. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983a. Analyses of the Risks and Benefits of Seven Chemicals Used for Subterranean Termite Control

. EPA-540/9-83-005. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1984a. Internal memorandum from G. LaRocca to B. Burnam et al., August 16, 1984. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1984b. Policy and Program Requirements to Implement the Quality Assurance Program . EPA Order 5360.1. Quality Assurance Management Staff, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985a. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 3. Recommended Analytical Detection Limits

. EPA-503/6-90-001. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985b. Development of Statistical Distribution for Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessment. EPA-600/8-85-010. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985c. Guidance for the Registration of Pesticide Products Containing Lindane as the Active Ingredient. EPA-540/RS-86-121. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985d. Pesticide Fact Sheet

— Terbufos . Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-31 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986a. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 4. Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority Pollutants and 301(h) Pesticides in Tissues from Marine and Estuarine Organisms . EPA-503/6-90-002. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986b. Pesticide Fact Sheet

— Diazinon . Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986c. Research and Development Methodology for Evaluating Potential Carcinogenicity in Support of Reportable Quality Adjustments to CERCLA Section 102

. OHEA-C-073 Draft. Carcinogen Assessment Group Office of Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986d. Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods . SW-846; 3rd Edition (with 1990 updates). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987a. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 2. Selection of Target Species and Review of Available Data. EPA-430/9-86-005. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987b. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 5. Strategies for Sample Replication and Compositing . EPA-430/9-87-003. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987c. Cadmium Health Advisory Draft . Office of Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987d. National Dioxin Study. Tiers 3, 5, 6, and 7. EPA-440/4-87-003. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987e. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for 301(h) Monitoring Programs: Guidance on Field and Laboratory Methods . EPA-430/9-86-004. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987f. The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 . EPA/600/8-87/045. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-32 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988a. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). ECAO-CIN-414. Prepared by Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office for Office of Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988b. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Tributyltin (Antifouling Paints) . Number 143. September 23, 1988. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989a. Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the Determination of Mercury in Fish

. Draft. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth MN.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989b. Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the Determination of PCDD/PCDF in Fish

. EPA-600/3-90-022. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989c. Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the Determination of Xenobiotic Chemical Contaminants in Fish . EPA-600/3-90-023. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, NM.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989d. Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A Guidance Manual. EPA-503/8-89-002. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989e. Pesticide Fact Sheet

— Ethion . Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990a. Exposure Factors Handbook . EPA 600/8-89/043. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990b. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods . SW-846, 3rd edition, proposed Update II. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990c. Tetrachlorodibenzop-Dioxins and-Dibenzofurans in Edible Fish Tissue at Selected Sites in Arkansas and Texas. Water Quality Management Branch and Surveillance Branch, Region 6, Dallas, TX.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-33 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990d. Work Plan for FY 91 Regional Ambient Fish Tissue Monitoring Program Activity No. ELR 80

. Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Branch, Region 7, Kansas City, KS.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters. Draft. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration . SOW 788, July. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991c. Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organic Analysis . Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991d. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Near Coastal Program Laboratory Methods for Filleting and Compositing Fish for Organic and Inorganic Contaminant Analyses. Draft. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991e. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Near Coastal Virginian Province Quality Assurance Project Plan . Draft. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, RI.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991f. Environmental Monitoring Methods Index, Version 1.0 Software, User ’ s Manual, EMMI User Support . Office of Water, Sample Control Center, Alexandria, VA.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991g. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples . EPA-600/4-91/010. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991h. National Bioaccumulation Study. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992a. Classification List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenicity Potential . Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection A gency). 1992b. Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish: A Review and Analysis of Survey Methods . EPA-822/R-92-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-34 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992c. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish . Volume I. EPA-823/R-92-008a. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992d. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish . Volume II. EPA-823/R-92-008b. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992e. 304(a) Criteria and Related Information for Toxic Pollutants. Spreadsheet. Water Quality Standards Unit, Water Management Division, Region 4, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993a. Fate One Liner Database . Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b. Notice of receipt of requests for amendments to delete uses in certain pesticide registration. Federal Register 58(220):60630-60631.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993c. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

. EPA/600/R-93/089. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993d. Reference Dose Tracking Report . Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993e. Workshop Report on Developmental Neurotoxic Effects Associated with Exposure to PCBs. September 14-15, 1992, Research Triangle Park, NC. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. June 30.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. Guidance on Establishing Trace Metal Clean Rooms in Existing Facilities. Draft. EPA 821-B-95-001. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995b. Method 1613b. Tetra- through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS. Final Draft. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-35 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995c. Method 1631: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry. Draft. EPA 821-R-95-027. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995d. Method 1632. Determination of Inorganic Arsenic in Water by Hydride Generation Flame Atomic Absorption. Draft. EPA 821-R-95-028. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995e. Method 1637: Determination of Trace Elements in Ambient Waters by Chelation Preconcentration with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption. EPA 821-R95-030. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection A gency). 1995f. Method 1638: Determination of Trace Elements in Ambient Waters by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995g. Method 1639: Determination of Trace Elements in Ambient Waters by Stabilized Temperature Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption. EPA 321-R-95-032. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995h. Guidance on the Documentation and Evaluation of Trace Metals Data Collected for Clean Water Act Compliance Monitoring. EPA 821-B-95-002. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995i. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dre dged Material Evaluations

— Chemical Evaluations . EPA 823-B-95-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC, and Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995j. Health Effects Document for Terbufos. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. PCBs: Cancer DoseResponse Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures

. EPA/6001P-96/00F. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-36 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Draft Method 1668 Toxic Polychlorinated Biphenols by Isotype Dilution High Gas Chromotography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry . Office of Water, Washington, DC. March.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors . EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997c. Mercury Study Report to Congress . EPA-452R-96-001a and b. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Daily average per capita fish consumption estimates based on the combined USDA 1989, 1990, and 1991 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals (CSFII) . Volume I: Uncooked Fish Consumption National Estimates. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC (unpublished report).
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. Guidance for Conducting Fish and Wildlife Surveys. EPA-823-B-98-007, November. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998c. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). Dicofol . Office of Pesticide Programs and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 1998d. Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.1000. Acute Toxicity Testing - Background: Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances . EPA- 712-C-98-189. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998e. Memorandum dated September 24, 1998. Reused Oxyfluofen (Goal) Quantitative Risk Assessment (Q1) based on CD-1 make mouse dietary study with 3/4 ’ s Interspecies Scaling Factor . HRD Doc. No. 012879.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories database-1998 . Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Classification List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenicity Potential . Office of Pesticide Programs and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-37 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 1999c. EPA Fact Sheet -Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories . EPA-823-F-99-005. Office of Water, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999d. The National Survey of Mercury Concentrations in Fish - Database Summary 1990-1995 . EPA823-R-99-014. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2 000a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories

– Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits . Volume 2. 3 rd Edition. EPA 823-B-00-008. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos . Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000c. Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States . EPA-821-R-00-025. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1990. Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volumes I and II . Report No. FDA/0M0-90/15A. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1993. Guidance Document for Arsenic in Shellfish. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Washington, DC. January.
U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1998. Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed. Industry Activities. Staff Booklet. Washington, DC.
U.S. FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Endangered Species Database

. December 1994.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1987. Methods for the determination of organic substances in water and fluvial sediments. Chapter A3. In: Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey

. R.L. Wershaw, M.J. Fishman, R.R. Grable, and L.E. Lowe (eds). Books and Open-File Reports Section, Denver, CO.
Vahter, M., and J. Envall. 1983. In vivo reduction of ars enate in mice and rabbits. Environ. Res. 32:14-24.
Vahter, M., E. Marafante, and L. Dencker. 1983. Metabolism of arsenobetaine in mice, rats and rabbits. Sci. Total Environ. 30:197-211.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-38 Vallee, B.L., D.D. Ulmer, and W.E.C. Wacker. 1960. Arsenic toxicology and biochemistry. Arch. Ind. Health 21:132-151.
Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A.T.C. Bosveld, et al. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for human and wildlife Environ. Health Perspect. 106(12):775-792.
Varanasi, U., and D.J. Gmur. 1980. Metabolic activation and covalent binding of benzo[a]pyrene to deoxyribonucleic acid catalyzed by liver enzymes of marine fish. Biochem. Pharmacol . 29:753-762.
Varanasi, U., and D.J. Gmur. 1981. In vivo metabolism of naphthalene and benzo[a]pyrene of flatfish. In: Chemical Analysis and Biological Fate: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. M. Cooke and A.J. D ennis (eds.). Fifth International Symposium, Columbus, OH, Battelle Press. pp. 367- 376.
Varanasi, U., W.L. Reichert, J.E. Stein, et al. 1985. Bioavailability and biotransformation of aromatic hydrocarbons in benthic organisms exposed to sediment from an urban estuary. Environ. Sci. Technol . 19:836-841.
Versar, Inc. 1982. Sampling Protocols for Collecting Surface Water, Bed Sediment, Bivalves and Fish for Priority Pollutant Analysis

— Final Draft Report . EPA Contract 68-01-6195. Prepared for Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, VA.
Versar, Inc. 1984. Sampling Guidance Manual for the Nati onal Dioxin Study

— Final Draft Report. EPA Contract 68-01-6160. Prepared for Office of Water Regulations and St andards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, VA.
Voiland, M.P., K.L. Gall, D.J. Lisk, and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. Effectiveness of recommended fat-trimming procedures on the reduction of PCB and Mirex levels in Brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) from Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 17(4):454-460.
Wade, T.L., B. Garcia-Romero, and J.M. Brooks. 1988. Tributyltin contamination of bivalves from U.S. coastal estuaries. Env. Sci. Technol. 22:1488-1492.
Walsh, P.R., R.A. Duce, and J.L. Fasching. 1979. Considerations of the enrichment, sources, and flux of arsenic in the troposphere. J. Geophys Res. 84(C4):1719-1726.
Wanderstock, J., W. Iskat, W. Gutenmann, and D. Lisk. 1971. Effect of several cooking methods on concentration of DDT residues in lake trout and coho salmon. New York Fish and Game J . 18:70-72.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-39 Wania, F., and D. Mackay. 1993. Global fractionation and cold condensation of low volatility organochlorine compounds in polar regions. Ambio 22:10-18.
Wania, F., and D. Mackay. 1996. Tracking the distribution of persistent organic pollutants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30(9):390A-396A.
Ward, G.S., G.C. Cramm, P.R. Parrish, H. Trachman, and A. Slesinger. 1981. Bioaccumulation and chronic toxicity of bis(tributyltin) oxide (TBTO): tests with a saltwater fish. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment

. D.R. Branson and K.L. Dickson (eds.). American Society of Testing and Materials, Publication No. ASTM STP 737, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 183- 200.
Ware, G.W. 1978. The Pesticide Book. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.
WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 1988. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program

— Field and Laboratory Guidelines . Report No. 1005.1. Madison, WI.
Weber, C.I. (ed.) 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents . EPA/670/4-73-001. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1976. Environmental Health Criteria. 1. Mercury. Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1989. Toxicological Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants. Arsenic . WHO Food Additive Series, 24, pp. 155-162, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1990. Environmental Health Criteria 101: Methylmercury . Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1999. Concise International Chemical Assessment . Document Number 14: Tributyltin Oxide. Geneva, Switzerland.
Willers, W. 1991. Trout Biology . Lyons and Burford, New York, NY.
Wiener, J.G. 1987. Metal contamination of fish in low-pH lakes and potential implications for piscivorous wildlife. Trans N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 52:654-657.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-40 Williams, S. (ed.). 1984. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists . Fourteenth edition. The Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc., Arlington, VA.
Williams, C.D., D.M. Nelson, M.E. Monaco, S.L. Stone, C. Iancu, L. CostonClements, L.R. Settle, and E.A. Irlandi. 1990. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Eastern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. ELMR Report No. 6. Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Wolf, R.J., and R.J. Walker. 1987. Economies in Alaska: Productivity, geography, and development impacts. Arctic Anthropol. 24:56-81.
Wood, J.M. 1974. Biological cycles for toxic elements in the environment. Science 183:1049-1052.
Woolson, E.A. (ed.). 1975. Arsenical pesticides . Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 7. 176 pp.
Worthing, C.R. 1991. The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium. 9th edition. British Crop Protection Council, Croydon, England.
Wynder, E.L., and D. Hoffman. 1959. A study of tobacco carcinogenesis. VII. The role of higher polycyclic hydrocarbons. Cancer 12:1079-1086.
Yamauchi, H., T. Kaise, and Y. Yamamura. 1986. Metabolism and excretion of orally administered arsenobetaine in the hamster. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 36:350-355.
Zabik, M., C. Hoojjat, and D. Weaver. 1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls, dieldrin, and DDT in lake trout cooked by broiling, roasting, or microwave. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol . 21:136-143.
Zabik, M.E., M.J. Zabik, and H. Humphrey. 1994. Assessment of Contaminants in Five Species of Great Lakes Fish at the Dinner Table . Final Report to the Great Lakes Protection Fund, Chicago, Illinois. March 1994.
Zabik, M.E., M.J. Zabik, A.M. Booren, M. Nettles, J.H. Song, R. Welch and H. Humphrey. 1995b. Pesticides and total polychlorinated biphenyls inchinook salmon and carp harvested from the Great Lakes: Effects of skinon and skin-off processing and selected cooking methods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 43:993-1001.
Zabik, M.E., A.M. Booren, M.J. Zabik, R. Welch, and H. Humphrey. 1996. Pesticide residues, PCBs and PAHs in baked, charbroiled, salt boiled, and smoked Great Lakes lake trout. Food Chem. 55 (3): 231-239.10. LITERATURE CITED

10-41 Zabik, M.E., and M.J. Zabik. 1995. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin residue reduction by cooking/processing of fish fillets harvested from the Great Lakes. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 55:264-269.
Zabik, M.E., and M.J. Zabik. 1996. Infl uence of processing on environmental contaminants in foods. Food Tech. 50: 225-229.
Zangerl, R. 1969. The turtle shell. In Biology of the Reptilia . C. Gans (ed.). Academic Press, New York. Volume 1, pp. 311-339.
Zaroogian, G.E., and G.L. Hoffman. 1982. Arsenic uptake and loss in the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 1:345- 358.
Zug, G.R., A.H. Wynn, and C. Ruckdeschel. 1986. Age determination of loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta , by incremental growth marks in the skeleton. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 427:1-34.
Zweig, G., and J. Sherma (eds.). 1980. Updated General Techni ques and Additional Pesticides. Volume 11. In: Analytical Methods for Pesticides and Plant-Growth Regulators . Academic Press, New York, NY.

## APPENDIX A

1993 FISH CONTAMINANT WORKGROUPAPPENDIX A

A-3 A. 1993 FISH CONTAMINANT WORKGROUP
These individuals representing EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, State and Federal agencies, Native American groups and others provided technical information, reviews, and recommendations throughout the preparation of the first edition of this document. Participation in the review process does not imply concurrence by these individuals with all concepts and methods described in this document.
A.1 EPA Headquarters Staff
Charles Abernathy EPA/Office of Water Thomas Armitage EPA/Office of Water Jeffrey Bigler EPA/Office of Water (Workgroup Chairman) Carin Bisland EPA/Office of Water Dennis Borum EPA/Office of Water Robert Cantilli EPA/Office of Water Julie Du EPA/Office of Water Richard Hoffman EPA/Office of Water Clyde Houseknecht EPA/Office of Water Henry Kahn EPA/Office of Water Amal Mahfouz EPA/Office of Water Michael Kravitz EPA/Office of Water Elizabeth Southerland EPA/Office of Water Margaret Stasikowski EPA/Office of Water Irene Suzukida-Horner EPA/Office of Water Elizabeth Tam EPA/Office of Water William Telliard EPA/Office of Water Charles White EPA/Office of Water Jennifer Orme Zavala EPA/Office of Water Tina Levine EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs Michael Metzger EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs Richard Whiting EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs Jacqueline Moya EPA/Office of Health and Environmental Assessment

A.2 Other EPA Office Staff
David DeVault EPA/Great Lakes National Program OfficeBrian Melzian EPA/Office of Reserach and DevelopmentNarragansett, RIJohn Paul EPA/Office of Research and DevelopmentNarragansett, RI Dennis McMullen EPA/Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory-Cincinnati, OHLaurence Burkhard EPA/Office of Research and DevelopmentDuluth, MNAPPENDIX A

A-4 Michael Dourson EPA/Office of Health and Environmental Assessment-Cincinnati, OH Donald Klemm EPA/Office of Health and Environmental Assessment-Cincinnati, OH
A.3 EPA Regional Staff
Charles Kanetsky Region 3 Jerry Stober Region 4 Peter Redmon Region 5 Diane Evans Region 6 Philip Crocker Region 7 Bruce Herbold Region 9
A.4 Other Federal Agency Staff
Michael Bolger FDA Leon Sawyer FDA Lee Barclay FWS Frank De Luise FWS Donald Steffeck FWS Jerry Schulte ORSANCO Adriana Cantillo NOAA Maxwell Eldridge NOAA Betty Hackley NOAA Alicia Jarboe NOAA Bruce Morehead NOAA Don Dycus TVA J. Kent Crawford USGS
A.5 State Agency Staff

Robert Cooner Alabama Brian Hughes Alabama William Keith Arkansas Thomas McChesney Arkansas Randall Mathis Arkansas Gerald Pollock California Robert McConnell Colorado Richard Greene Delaware Eldert Hartwig Florida Randall Manning Georgia Robert Flentge Illinois C. Lee Bridges Indiana Emelise Cormier Louisiana Albert Hindrichs Louisiana Elaine Sorbet LouisianaAPPENDIX A

A-5 Deirdre Murphy Maryland Jack Schwartz Massachusetts John Hesse Michigan Richard Powers Michigan Lisa Williams Michigan Pamela Shubat Minnesota Alan Buchanan Missouri David Tunink Nebraska Donald Normandeau New Hampshire Paul Hauge New Jersey Lawrence Skinner New York Ken Eagleson North Carolina Jay Sauber North Carolina Luanne Williams North Carolina Michael Ell North Dakota Martin Schock North Dakota Abul Anisuzzaman Ohio Gene Foster Oregon Barbara Britton Texas Peter Sherertz Virginia Ram Tripathi Virginia Jim Amrhein Wisconsin Bruce Baker Wisconsin
A.6 Other Organizations

James Wiener American Fisheries Society Deborah Schwackhamer University of Minnesota Alvin Braswell North Carolina State Museum of Natural Science J. Whitfield Gibbons University of Georgia Savannah River Ecology Laboratory

## APPENDIX B

SCREENING VALUES FOR DEFINING GREEN AREASAPPENDIX B

B-3 APPENDIX B
Recommendations for Designating Areas of Unrestricted Fish Consumption as Part of State Fish Advisory Programs
Fish consumption advisories issued across the United States have increased over the past 5 years from 1,266 advisories in 1993 to 2,506 advisories in 1998. Many states are now advising their citizens either (1) not to consume any fish or any fish of a specific species or specific size class from specified waterbodies, or (2) to restrict their consumption of these fish to a specified number of meals per time interval (such as one meal per week or two meals per month). This comes at a time when the health benefits of consuming fish have also become widely recognized (Burr et al., 1989; Dolecek and Granditis, 1991; Kimbrough, 1991; Knapp and Fitzgerald, 1989; Kromhout, 1993; Krom hout et al., 1985; McVeigh, 1990; Norell et al.,1986; Shekelle et al., 1985; Simopoulous, 1991). In an attempt to promote consumption of fish with relatively low body burdens of chemical contaminants as part of a healthy diet, some states have defined certain waterbodies as containing fish that are safe for “unrestricted consumption.” These areas that are identified as safe for unrestricted fish consumption are often referred to as “green” areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Fish and Wildlife Contamination Program is recommending that states develop an approach for designating and communicating the location of these safe fishing areas to the fish-consuming public. This risk management tool encourages both fishing as a recreational activity and the consumption of fish that are low in chemical contaminant residues, high in protein, and low in fat content.
This green area concept, already in use in several U.S. states and Canadian provinces, would enable states, territories, and tribes to define areas where fish tissue monitoring data and appropriate risk assessments have determined that fish may be safely consumed at unrestricted levels (as defined by the state) from a particular waterbody or waterbodies in a particular watershed. The green areas concept is in contrast to the more traditionally issued fish advisory that discourages fish consumption from specified water bodies altogether or advises reduced consumption of fish. These green areas may comprise watersheds that are relatively undeveloped from an industrial and agricultural perspective, such as wilderness areas, or areas that border county, state, or national forests or preserves. One cautionary note with regard to waterbodies in very remote areas must be made, however. Several studies have monitored what were perceived as pristine watersheds and unexpectedly found elevated chemical contamination in fish tissues at levels of potential human health concern (Datta et al., 1999; Grieb et al., 1990; Henry et al., 1998; Sorensen et al., 1990; Swackhamer and Hites, 1998). Although these waterbodies were removed from direct i ndustrial point source discharges and agricultural nonpoint source pollution, several chemical contaminants such as mercury, toxaphene, and PCBs, can be transported in the atmosphere from highly contaminated areas and be deposited relatively long distances from the actual pollutant sources. This atmospheric transportation ofAPPENDIX B

B-4 some chemical contaminants has resulted in the issuance of statewide freshwater advisories for mercury in 10 states (U.S. EPA, 2000).
Most states sample fish from a variety of waters during their annual fish monitoring programs. Not all waterbodies sampled are found to be contaminated to such a degree that issuance of advisories is necessary. It is those waterbodies containing fish with lower chemical residues (below human health screening values) that would potentially fall under the broad cat egory of green areas. Within the green areas, however, there need to be criteria for distinguishing those waterbodies that are only slightly below the human health levels of concern from those that are truly pristine with respect to chemical contaminant levels in fish tissues. Once these green areas have been identified, states can use appropriate information on fish-consuming populations to establish appropriate consumption information.
To designate a waterbody as a green area where unrestricted fish consumption (as defined by the state) is sanctioned, EPA recommends that a state

 Collect a variety of fish species in the waterbody under review for green area status, but particularly target those species that are generally consumed by the local recreational or subsistence fishers using the waterbody.

 Assess levels of contamination for all of the 25 target analytes identified in this guidance document in the sampled fish tissue that are likely to impact that waterbody and compare residue levels to selected human health screening values.

 Conduct a risk assessment of the resulting chemical analysis data to determine whether the waterbody can be designated a green area and to
more clearly define “ unrestricted consumption ” for the fish-consuming population given the specific levels of contamination for each of the target analytes found

 Clearly define for and communicate to the fish-consuming public the definition of “ unrestricted consumption ” based on the specific assumption used in the risk assessment procedure for the green area waters so that all segments of the fish-consuming public including sensitive populations (e.g., pregnant women/fetuses, nursing mothers, and children) understand the limitations of this unrestricted consumption status.
EPA suggests that the states follow the guidance in this volume for designing a monitoring program (Sections 2, 3, and 6), including the selection and sampling of appropriate target species in adequate numbers and of appropriate size classes. Two distinct screening values are available to the states based on different consumption rates of two distinct fisher populations: recreational fishers and subsistence fishers. State-collected information from creel surveys or interviews with these two distinct populations is most desirable for use in derivingAPPENDIX B

B-5 screening values. (See U.S. EPA, 1998, Guidance for Conducting Fish and Wildlife Consumption Surveys for further information.) If local information on these fisher populations is not available, states may use the EPA default consumption rate values of 17.5 g/d and 142.4 g/d for recreational and subsistence populations, respectively, to calculate screening values.
Table B-1 summarizes the screening values (SVs) that states may choose to use to initially identify green areas. Screening values for the 25 target analytes are provided for both recreational and subsistence fishers based on the EPA default consumption rates (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4 in Section 5.2 for additional information on calculating screening values.) These calculated SVs for each of the target analytes should not be exceeded in fish tissues for the respective target fish-consuming population. The SVs listed in the table for target analytes such as inorganic arsenic, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, toxaphene, oxyfluorfen, and PCBs that have both noncancer and cancer health endpoints are represented by the more conservative or protective of the two calculated SVs.
One concern states must address relates to the detection limit of the analytical method selected for chemical analysis of each target analyte in fish tissue samples. Just because an analyte cannot be detected in fish tissue, does not ensure that the area is safe for unrestricted consumption. For some of the target analytes, especially those calculated using subsistence consumption rates, the SVs are at or below the detection limit for even the most state-of-the-art residue analysis methods (see Table B-1). Thus, the analytical result of a sample being less than the mean detection limit for a particular analyte will not provide the state with adequate information about the actual contaminant level to accurately determine the meal size and meal frequency that can safely be consumed.
States in many cases have been forced by limited monitoring resources to target the collection and analysis of fish tissues to those waterbodies deemed most likely to be contaminated by chemical pollutants. Unlike sampling to determine whether a fish consumption advisory should be issued for a chemical contaminant, which requires only that one chemical be found in exceedance of a human health SV, sampling and analysis to determine green area status must confirm that there are no chemical contaminants in exceedance of the selected human health SVs. It is also important that the state directly monitor the contaminant tissue levels of the various chemical contaminants of concern in fish tissue rather than rely on indirect methods such as measuring water or sediment contaminant levels to estimate the level of fish tissue contamination in a particular waterbody.
EPA further recommends that states clearly define for the fish-consuming population the meaning of “ unrestricted consumption. ” For example, a state may choose a green area designation for their jurisdictional waters that are primarily used by recreational fishers. These waters must then not exceed SVs forAPPENDIX B

B-6 Table B-1. Screening Values for Defining Green Areas Based on Recreational or Subsistence Use of the Waterbody (ppm)

Target Analyte SV Based on Recreational Fisher Consumption SV Based on Subsistence Fisher Consumption Analytical Detection

Limits Arsenic (inorganic) 0.026 3.87 x 10 -3 a 0.005
Cadmium 4 0.58 0.005 Mercury 0.4 5.8 x 10 -2 0.001
Selenium 20 2.9 0.017 Tributyltin 1.2 0.17 0.002 Chlordane (Total) 0.114 0.016 0.001 DDT (Total) 0.117 0.017 1 x 10 -4
Dicofol 1.6 0.23 0.001
Dieldrin 2.5 x 10 -3 3.07 x 10 -4 a 1 x 10 -4 Endosulfan (I and II) 24 2.949 0.005
Endrin 1.2 0.147 1 x 10 -4 Heptachlor epoxide 4.39 x 10 -3 5.40 x 10 -4 a 1 x 10 -4
Hexachlorobenzene 2.50 x 10 -2 3.07 x 10 -3 1 x 10 -4
Lindane 3.07 x 10 -2 3.78 x 10 -3 1 x 10 -4
Mirex 0.8 0.098 1 x 10 -4 Toxaphene 3.63 x 10 -2 4.46 x 10 -3a 0.003 Chlorpyrifos 1.2 1.147 0.002
Diazinon 2.8 0.344 0.002
Disulfoton 0.16 0.019 0.002
Ethion 2 0.245 0.002
Terbufos 0.08 0.009 0.002 Oxyfluorfen 0.546 0.067 0.010
PAHs 5.47 x 10 -3 6.73 x 10 -4 1 x 10 -6 PCBs (Total) Sum of Aroclors a Non-ortho coplanar PCBs Other congeners/ homologues 0.02 2.45 x 10 -3 a 0.020 2 x 10 -6 0.002

Dioxins/Furans 2.56 x 10 -7 a 3.15 x 10 -8 a 1 x 10 -6

a Target analyte (total)s for which the analytical detection limit is likely to be at or above the

calculated SV depending on the analytical method selected. States must ensure that the analytical method chosen provides detection limits lower than the selected SVs for all 25 target analytes for designation of green area waters.APPENDIX B

B-7 recreational fishers and the state must define “ unrestricted consumption ” for the consumer. For example, the state ’ s green areas may be defined as areas from which fish consumers may safely eat four 8-ounce fish meals per month (or approximately one fish meal per week) without any additional health risks. This definition must be clearly communicated, particularly to members of high-end fish-consuming groups such as some Native Americans, certain ethnic groups, and subsistence fishers as well as to sensitive populations (pregnant women/ fetuses, nursing women and children). The state should clearly define for the public both the meal size and meal frequency used in their green area designations so that high-end fish consumers do not erroneously assume that the unrestricted consumption designation that is protective of recreational fishers based on their consumption rate is also protective of subsistence fishers. In addition, the state should provide the fish-consuming public with information on the types of fish samples (whole fish, skin-on fillets, skin-off fillets, or other sample types) used to establish the green area designation. Because skinning, trimming, and certain cooking procedures also help reduce chemical residues in fish tissues (EPA, 1999) (see Volume 2 of this series, Appendix C

— Dose Modification Due to Food Preparation), the state should also provide information on these procedures particularly to fisher populations who consume whole fish or portions of the fish other than the standard fillet. If the green area concept is to be effective in promoting fishing and the consumption of fish, it is essential that the fish-consuming public be given adequate information to understand the definition of unrestricted fish consumption from these green areas.
One approach is to communicate these locations to the public in fishing brochures annually distributed as part of the existing fish advisory programs. In addition to publishing this information in state fishing brochures, EPA anticipates making this information a new choice of advisory designations available to the states and tribes for incorporation into the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) database. EPA realizes that this new designation will be successful only if the states and tribes receive guidance and the information is presented in an easily implemented format.
In addition to implementation of green areas within their jurisdictions, states are also encouraged to initiate or exp and the use of general fish consumption guidance for all fish. Several states provide advise on catching, cleaning, cooking, and consumption of fish species. In some jurisdictions, states have issued unlimited consumption or restricted consumption advisories for smaller size classes of those species that are particularly popular with consumers. In this way, the state is still encouraging the recreational aspects of fishing and continued consumption of smaller-sized fish within a given species that typically contain lower residues of chemical contaminants. As a result, the public is encouraged to enjoy both the sport of fishing and the health benefits of eating fish within the specific consumption guidance provided by the state.APPENDIX B

B-8 References
Burr, M.L., A.M. Fehily, J.F. Gilbert, S. Rogers, R.M. Holliday, P.M. Sweetnam, P.C. Elwood, and N.M. Deadman. 1989. Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on death and myocardial reinfarction: Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART). Lancet 2(8666):757-761.
Datta,S., K. Ohyama, D.Y. Dunlap, and F. Matsumura. 1999. Evidence for organochlone contamination in tissues of salmonids in Lake Tahoe. Ecotoxicol. and Environ. Safety 42: 94-101.
Dolecek, T.A., and G. Granditis. 1991. Dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and mortality in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). World Rev. Nutr. Diet 66:205-216.
Grieb, T.M., C.T. Driscoll, S.P. Gloss, C.L. Schofield, G.L. Bowie, and D.B. Porcella. 1990. Factors affecting mercury accumulation in fish in the Upper Michigan Peninsula. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 9:919-930.
Henry, K.S., K. Kannan, B.W. Nagy, N.R. Kevern, M.J. Zabik, and J.P. Giesy. 1998. Concentrations and hazard assessment of organochlorine contaminants and mercury in smallmouth bass from a remote lake in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Arch. Environ. Contam Toxicol . 34:81-86.
Kimbrough, R.D. 1991. Consumption of fish: Benefits and perceived risk. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 33 (1):81-91.
Knapp, H.R., and G.A. Fitzgerald. 1989. The antihypertensive effects of fish oil. A controlled study of polyunsaturated fatty acid supplements in essential hypertension. N. Engl. J. Med. 320 (16):1037-1043.
Kromhout, D. 1993. Epidemiological aspects of fish in the diet. Proc. Nutr. Soc . 52 (3):437-439.
Kromhout, D., E.B. Bosschieter, and C.dL. Coulander. 1985. The inverse relation between fish consumption and 20-year mortality from coronary heart disease. N. Engl. J. Med . 312 (19):1205-1209.
McVeigh, G. 1990. Arthritis and diet: a new look. Prevention 42 (10):40-45.
Norell, S.E., A. Ahlbom, M. Feychting, and N.L. Pedersen. 1986. Fish consumption and mortality from coronary heart disease. Br Med. J. (Clin. Res. Ed.) 293(6544):426.APPENDIX B

B-9 Shekelle, R.B., L. Missell, O. Paul, A. M. Shryock, and J. Stamler. 1985. Fish consumption and mortality from coronary heart disease (letter). N. Engl. J. Med

. 313 (13):820
Simopoulos, A.P. 1991. Omega-3 fatty acids in health and disease and in growth and development. Am. J. of Clin. Nutr. 54(3):438-463.
Sorensen, J.A., G.E. Glass, K.W. Schmidt, J.K. Huber, and G.R. Rapp Jr. 1990. Airborne mercury deposition and watershed characteristics in relation to mercury concentrations in water, sediments, plankton, and fish of eighty northern Minnesota lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol . 24:1716-1727.
Swackhamer, D.L., and R.A. Hites. 1988. Occurrence and bioaccumulation of organochlorine compounds in fishes from Siskiwit Lake, Isle Royale, Lake Superior. Environ. Sci. Technol . 22:543-548.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidance for Conducting Fish and Wildlife Consumption Surveys . EPA-823-B-98-007. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection A gency). 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories

— Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. Volume 2. 3 rd Edition, EPA-823-B-99-009. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

# APPENDIX C

USE OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES IN FISH CONTAMINANT MONITORING PROGRAMSAPPENDIX C

C-3 

## APPENDIX C

USE OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES IN FISH CONTAMINANT MONITORING PROGRAMS

The use of composite samples is often the most cost-effective method for estimating average tissue concentrations of analytes in target species populations to assess chronic human health risks. However, there are some situations in which individual sampling can be more appropriate from both ecological and risk assessment perspectives. Individual sampling provides a direct measure of the range and variability of contaminant levels in target fish populations. Information on maximum contaminant concentrations in individual fish is useful in evaluating acute human health risks. Estimates of the variability of contaminant levels among individual fish can be used to ensure that studies meet desired statistical objectives. For example, the population variance of a contaminant can be used to estimate the sample size needed to detect statistically significant differences in the mean contaminant concentration compared to the contaminant screening values. Finally, the analysis of individual samples may be desirable, or necessary, when the objective is to minimize the impacts of sampling on certain vulnerable target populations, such as predators in headwater streams and aquatic turtles, and in cases where the cost of collecting enough individuals for a composite sample is excessive.
Analyzing individual fish incurs additional expenses, particularly when oneconsiders that a number of individual analyses are required to achieve measurements of a reasonable statistical power. However, the recommendation that states archive the individual fish homogenates from which composite samples are prepared for both scr eening and intensive studies (see Section 6.1.1.6) would make it possible to perform individual analyses where needed without incurring additional sampling costs.
Individual analysis is especially well-suited for intensive studies, in which results from multiple stations and time periods are to be compared. The remainder of this appendix discusses how the sampling design might be affected by analyzing individual rather than composite samples and how contaminant data from individuals versus composites might be used in risk assessments.

C.1 SAMPLING DESIGN
There are seven major components of the sampling design for a fish or shellfish monitoring program: site selection, target species, target analytes, target analyte screening values (SVs), sampling time, sampling type and size class, and repli-APPENDIX C

C-4 Table C-1. Relative Cost of Obtaining Contaminant Data from Individual Versus Composite Samples

Cost component Relative cost Composite samples Individual samples Collection Moderate to high Low to moderate Preparation Very low to moderate Very low to low Analysis Low to moderate Moderate to high cate samples. Of these, only the number of replicate samples and possibly the target species would be expected to differ if individual samples were analyzedrather than composites. Target species becomes a limiting factor when individuals of the target species are not large enough to provide adequate tissue mass for all the required chemical analyses.
The five factors that determine the optimal number of fish or shellfish to analyze are presented in Section 6.1.2.7. Briefly, the five factors are
• Cost components • Minimum detectable difference between measured site-specific mean target analyte concentration and SV • Level of significance • Population variance • Power of the hypothesis test.

Each of these characteristics will be examined in detail for the collection and analysis of individual samples.
C.1.1 Cost Components
The cost of obtaining contaminant data from individual fish or shellfish is compared to the cost of obtaining contaminant data from composite samples in Table C-1. These costs are dependent on the s eparate costs of collecting, preparing, and analyzing the samples.

Typically, the cost of collecting individual samples will be less than that of collecting composite samples when the target species is scarce or difficult to capture. The cost of collecting individuals may not be a factor if the sample collection method used typically allows for the collection of a large number of individuals in a short period of time. In some situations, seines or gill nets might have this characteristic. Also, in estuaries, coastal water, or large lakes where productivity is high, the additional cost of collecting large numbers of individualsfor composite sampling may be minimal compared to the effort expended for collecting individual samples.APPENDIX C

C-5 The cost of preparing individual samples for analysis is typically lower than either the costs of collection or analysis. Generally, the cost of preparing composite samples for analysis will be greater than that of preparing individual samples. Sample preparation procedures can range in complexity from the grinding of whole fish to delicate and time-consuming operations to resect specific tissues. Costs of composite sampling depend largely on the number of individuals required per composite sample and the number of replicate composite samples required to achieve the desired statistical power; however, these costs can be somewhat controlled (see Section 6.1.2.7).
The cost of analyzing individual samples is also typically higher than the cost of analyzing composite samples. The cost differential between the two approaches is directly correlated to the cost for the analysis of a single sample. For some intensive studies, the number of target analytes exceeding the SV is small, so few analyses are required. In these cases, the relative costs between the two approaches may not differ greatly if the number of samples analyzed using the two different approaches is similar (e.g., three to five samples). A sampling design with such a small number of individual samples would be appropriate only if the expected mean target analyte concentration was much greater than the SV.

C.1.2 Minimum Detectable Difference
The difference between the mean target analyte concentration at a site and the SV will not often be known before the screening study has been performed. The minimum detectable difference between the mean concentration and the SV will depend on the level of significance (see Section C.1.3), population variance (Section C.1.4), and the number of replicates collected. In practice, the sample size is often determined by establishing the minimum detectable difference prior to the study according to the objectives of the project. For an SV that has not been multiplied by an uncertainty factor, the cost of detecting a 10 percent difference may be warranted. The issue of minimum detectable difference is discussed in greater detail in Section C.1.5.
C.1.3 Level of Significance
The level of significance (LS) refers to the probability of incorrectly rejecting thenull hypothesis that there is no difference between the mean target analyte concentration and the SV. This probability is also called Type I error. The LS can be thought of as the chance of a "false positive" or of detecting a difference that does not exist. The LS affects the sampling design by modifying the required power (thus impacting the sample size) of the statistical test to detect a significant difference between the mean target analyte concentration and the SV (see Section C.1.5). A typical LS used in biological sampling is 0.05. In some cases, an LS other than 0.05 could be appropriate. If the ramifications of a statistically significant difference are severe, a more conservative LS (e.g., 0.01) might be used. On the other hand, if the statistical test is being conducted to identifyAPPENDIX C

C-6 

### n= (Z +Z a b 

### s d ) 2 2

2 

### 2 whether additional sampling should be performed (i.e., a screening survey), then a less conservative LS (e.g., 0.10) might be used.
C.1.4 Population Variance
The variability in target analyte concentrations within a given fish or shellfish population is a critical factor in determining how many individual samples to collect and analyze. The population variance directly affects the power of the statistical test to detect a significant difference between the mean target analyte concentration and the SV (see Section C.1.5) by impacting the sample size. The population variance may not be known prior to sampling, but it can be estimated from similar data sets from the same target species, which could in many cases be obtained by analyzing individual fish homogenates if these have been archived as recommended in Section 6.1.1.6. In using historical data to estimate population variance, it is important to consider contaminant data only from individual fish or shellfish of the same species. By its very nature, a data set consisting of replicate composite samples tends to smooth out the variability inherent in a group of individual organisms. An extreme example of this phenomenon was presented by Fabrizio et al. (1995) in a study on procedures for compositing fish samples. They used computer simulations to predict PCB concentrations in composite samples of striped bass that had previously been analyzed individually. The predicted variance in these concentrations in the composite samples was approximately 20 percent of the variance obtained from individual analyses.

C.1.5 Power of Statistical Test
Another critical factor in determining the sample size is the power of the statistical test, that is, the probability of detecting a true difference between the mean target analyte concentration and the SV. Because of its profound influence on sample size, it is the power of the test that may ultimately control whether the objectives of the survey are met. The effect of joint consideration of the desired power, the population variance, and the minimum detectable difference on the sample size is described by the following formula (Steel and Torrie, 1980):

where n = sample size Z " = Z statistic for Type I error (  ) Z $ = Z statistic for Type II error ( )
 2 = population variance (estimated from historical data)  = minimum detectable difference between mean target analyte concentration and SV.APPENDIX C

C-7 Recall that the Type I error is equal to the LS, and the value is generally between 0.01 and 0.10. Type II error is the pro bability of accepting the null hypothesis (that there is no difference between the mean target population concentration and the SV) when it is actually false. This type of error can be thought of as the chance of a "false negative," or not detecting a difference that does in fact exist. The complement of Type II error (1- ) is the power of the statistical test.
The above equation for determining sample size was solved for powers ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 (50 to 90 percent; Figure C-1) assuming an LS of 0.05. The values for  (standard deviation) and  were set relative to the SV. A similar exercise was performed in Section 6.1.2.7 and two examples were provided. In example A, both the standard deviation and minimum detectable difference were set to 0.5 SV. Example A corresponds to a ratio of 1 on the x-axis of Figure C-1. Applying example A to the collection of individual fish, the recommended sample size would range from approximately 6 individual samples for a power of 50 percent to 18 individual samples for a power of 90 percent (Figure C-1). In example B, the standard deviation was set to 1.0 SV, while the minimum detectable difference was kept at 0.5 SV. Example B corresponds to a ratio of 2 on the x-axis of Figure C-1. Applying example B to the collection of individual samples, the sample size would have to be almost 40 individual samples to achieve even a modest statistical power (i.e., 70 percent).
It is common to set the power of the statistical test to at least 80 percent (Fairweather, 1991). Figure C-1 indicates that, to achieve a statistical power of 80 percent using the variability assumptions in examples A and B, 13 and 50 fish would have to be collected, respectively. The estimated sample sizes for individual fish or shellfish is similar to those calculated for composite samples (see Section 6.1.2.7). For example A as applied to composite samples, 12 to 18 fish would have to be collected. For example B as applied to composite samples, 30 to 50 fish would have to be collected. Thus, the cost of collecting the fish to achieve a power of 80 percent would not be significantly different for composite versus individual samples (see Section C.1.1). The number of analyses, however, would be considerably less for composite samples (3 to 10 analyses of composite samples versus 13 or 50 analyses of individual samples).
Figure C-1 also indicates that 10 or fewer individual fish or shellfish should be analyzed only if the ratio of the standard deviation to the minimum detectable difference is 0.85 or less. For ratios less than 0.5, the effect of sample size on the statistical power is minor. If the expected mean target analyte concentration is many times greater than the SV, it may not be necessary to allocate resources toward the collection and analysis of more than a minimum number (e.g., three to five samples) of individual fish or shellfish.APPENDIX C

C-8Figure C-1. Recommended sample sizes to achieve various statistical powers.APPENDIX C

C-9 C.2 USE OF CONTAMINANT DATA FROM INDIVIDUAL FISH/SHELLFISH IN RISK ASSESSMENTS
Target analyte concentrations in composite samples represent averages for specific target species populations. The use of these values in risk assessments is appropriate if the objective is to estimate the average concentration to which consumers of the target species might be exposed over a long period of time. The use of long exposure durations (e.g., 30 to 70 years) is typical of the assessment of carcinogenic target analytes, the health effects of which may be manifested over an entire lifetime (see Volume 2 of this series). Target analytes that produce noncarcinogenic effects, on the other hand, may cause acute effects to human health over a relatively short period of time on the order of hours or days. The use of average contaminant concentrations derived from the analysis of composite samples may not be protective against acute health effects because high concentrations in an individual organism may be masked by lower concentrations in other individuals in the composite sample. Contaminant data from individual samples permits the use of alternative estimates of contaminant concentration for a group of fish or shellfish (e.g., maximum). Therefore, the decision whether to collect and analyze individual fish or shellfish may depend on the target analytes included in the monitoring program.
EPA has recommended that 25 target analytes be included in screening studies (see Section 4). All of the target analytes except PCBs, PAHs, and dioxins/furans have reference doses for noncarcinogenic health effects, although the carcinogenic risk is likely to be greater than the noncarcinogenic risk for eight other target analytes (see Tables 5-2 and 5-3). EPA’s reassessment of the health effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) indicated that this chemical may also pose a significant noncarcinogenic health risk in some cases (U.S. EPA, 1994).

C.3 EXAMPLE CASE STUDY
The presentation of a case study will illustrate some of the sample size and data interpretation issues discussed in Sections C.1 and C.2, respectively. A State has prepared a composite sample of target species A from a particular waterbody of concern. This composite sample was analyzed for all 25 target analytes listed in Table 4-1. Of the 25 target analytes, only cadmium was detected at a concentration exceeding the state selected SV (10 ppm) for cadmium. Cadmium was detected at 20 ppm, twice the SV calculated for cadmium. Because the SV for at least one target analyte was exceeded, an intensive study was warranted. The state decided to collect and analyze individual fish in the intensive study for the following reasons: (1) the cost of collecting individual fish is less than the cost of collecting fish for composites, (2) the analytical costs for analyzing cadmium are relatively low (<$50 sample), and (3) the cadmium concentrations in individual fish should more accurately reflect the potential acute (noncarcinogenic) health risk from cadmium than the mean cadmium concentration derived from composite samples.APPENDIX C

C-10 The first issue the state must decide is how many individual fish to collect and analyze. The important factors in this decision are the minimum detectable difference the state wishes to test and the variability in cadmium concentrations within the target species population. The first factor can be obtained from the results of the screening survey. The state wishes to test whether the difference between the concentration detected in the single composite sample (20 ppm) and the selected SV (10 ppm) is significant. This assumes that the mean cadmium concentration for the individual is also 20 ppm. The expected standard deviation (8 ppm) was obtained from a previous investigation performed on individuals of the target species and was equal to 0.8 of the SV (10 ppm). Using Figure C-1, it can be seen that, for a ratio of standard deviation (0.8 x SV) to detectable difference (1.0 x SV) of 0.8, the sample size necessary to achieve a statistical power of 80 percent would be eight fish.
The state determines that the mean cadmium concentration of eight individual fish of the target species is 30 ppm and the standard deviation is equal to the predicted value of 8 ppm. The state performs a t -test to determine if the mean concentration is significantly greater than the SV. As described in Section 6.1.2.7, the statistic
(mean - SV)/standard deviation

has a t -distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom. For this example, the t statistic is 2.5 ([(30-10)/8] with 7 degrees of freedom. This value exceeds the critical t-statistic (1.895) for a one-tailed LS of 0.05. Therefore, the state determines that the mean cadmium concentration for these eight individual fish of the target species is significantly greater than the SV and a risk assessment is performed.

C.4 REFERENCES
Fabrizio, M.C., A.M. Frank, and J.F. Savino. 1995. Procedures for formation of composite samples from segmented populations. Environmental Science and Technology 29(5):1137-1144.
Fairweather, P.G. 1991. Statistical power and design requirements for environmental monitoring. Aust. J. Freshwater Res. 42:555-567.
Steel, R.G.D., and J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, NY. 633 pp.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Health Assessment for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Related Compounds . Public Review Draft. EPA/600/EP-92/001.

# APPENDIX D

FISH AND SHELLFISH SPECIES FOR WHICH STATE

CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES HAVE BEEN ISSUEDAPPENDIX D

D-3 

## APPENDIX D

FISH AND SHELLFISH SPECIES FOR WHICH STATE CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES HAVE BEEN ISSUED

FRESHWATER FINFISH SPECIES FOR WHICH STATE CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES HAVE BEEN ISSUED

1993 and 1998 (Bold type) 1998 only (Normal type) 1993 only ( Italic type)

AL fish species (unspecified), catfish (unspecified), bigmouth buffalo, brown bullhead, channel catfish, white bass smallmouth buffalo, c hannel catfish, largemouth bass, spotted bass, striped bass, crappie, king mackerel
AK no consumption advisories AS fish species (unspecified), shellfish (unspecified)
AZ fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass, yellow bullhead, channel catfish, black crappie, bluegill sunfish, green sunfish, redear sunfish
AR fish species (unspecified) bass (unspecified), black bass, largemouth bass, bowfin, buffalo, catfish (unspecified), blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, crappie, freshwater drum, gar, pickerel, redhorse, sucker, sunfish CA goldfish, Sacramento blackfish, brown bullhead, crappie (unspecified), hitch, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, white catfish, trout (unspecified), rainbow trout, croaker (unspecified), orangemouth corvina, sargo, tilapia (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) brown trout, bullhead (unspecified), white crappie, black crappie, carp (unspecified), corbina, striped bass, kelp bass, gobies, queenfish, rockfish, sculpin, shark, shellfish (unspecified), surfperch squawfish, sucker (unspecified)APPENDIX D

D-4 CO rainbow trout, yellow perch, northern pike, walleye, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, bl ack crappie, kokanee salmon, channel catfish
, fish species (unspecified) bullhead, common carp, crappie (unspecified), brown trout

trout (unspecified) CT common carp, fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, striped bass, bluefish, bullhead, catfish (unspecified), American eel, chain pickerel, trout (unspecified)
DE white catfish, channel catfish, fish species (unspecified) striped bass, white perch, carp (unspecified), largemouth bass, catfish (unspecified) DC American eel carp (unspecified), catfish (unspecified) channel catfish, common carp
FL largemouth bass, gar, bowfin, warmouth sunfish, yellow bullhead, Mayan cichlid, oscar, spotted sunfish gafftopsail catfish, jack crevalle, ladyfish, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, spotted sea trout, shark GA common carp, largemouth bass, catfish (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) hybrid bass, redeye bass, shoal bass, spotted bass, striped bass, Suwannee bass, white bass, bowfin, smallmouth buffalo, bullhead (unspecified), brown bullhead, spotted bullhead, yellow bullhead, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white catfish, black crappie, Atlantic croaker, black drum, red drum, flounder, striped mullet, silver perch, chain pickerel, grayfin redhorse, silver redhorse, spotted sea trout, greater jumprock sucker, spotted sucker, sunfish, redbreast sunfish, rainbow trout, walleye, clams, blue crab, mussels, oysters, shrimp GU no consumption advisories HI all fish species (unspecified), shellfish (unspecified) ID smallmouth bass, catfish (unspecified), black crappie, white crappie, yellow perch
IL lake trout, coho salmon, chinook salmon, brown trout, common carp, catfish (unspecified), channel catfish, shovelnose sturgeon, bluegill, freshwater drum, largemouth bass, spotted bass, alewife white bass, blue catfish, black crappie, white crappie, yellow perch, sauger, smelt bigmouth buffalo, flathead catfish, smallmouth buffalo, cr appie (unspecified)APPENDIX D

D-5 IN fish species (unspecified), common carp, catfish (unspecified), coho salmon, brown trout, lake trout, chinook salmon, channel catfish largemouth bass, rock bass, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, striped bass, hybrid striped bass, white bass, yellow bass, bloater, bowfin, bigmouth buffalo, black buffalo, smallmouth buffalo, bullhead (unspecified), black bullhead, yellow bullhead, carp (unspecified), carpsucker, quillback carpsucker, river carpsucker, flathead catfish, creek chub, black crappie, white crappie, freshwater drum, round goby, northern hogsucker, paddlefish, yellow perch, northern pike, redhorse (unspecified), black redhorse, golden redhorse, river redhorse, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse, sauger, gizzard shad, shovelnose sturgeon, blue sucker, longnose sucker, spotted sucker, white sucker, bluegill sunfish, green sunfish, longear sunfish, brook trout, rainbow trout, steelhead trout, walleye, whitefish (unspecified), lake whitefish
IA common carp, fish species (unspecified) quillback carpsucker
channel catfish
, carpsucker (unspecified) KS buffalo (unspecified), common carp, freshwater drum, carpsucker (unspecified) blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, bullhead catfish, shovelnose sturgeon catfish (unspecified), sturgeon (unspecified)
KY channel catfish, paddlefish, white bass, common carp, fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass
LA bass (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass, spotted bass, striped bass, white bass, bowfin, bigmouth buffalo, carp (unspecified), channel catfish, flathead catfish, crappie, black crappie, white crappie, freshwater drum, gar, king mackerel, shad, shellfish (unspecified), bluegill sunfish, redear sunfish
ME fish species (unspecified) striped bass, bluefish, American lobster,l freshwater fish, cold water fish, warm water fish
MD channel catfish, American eel, black crappie, common carp bullhead (unspecified), sunfish (unspecified)APPENDIX D

D-6 MA brown trout, yellow perch, white sucker, American eel, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, lake trout, channel catfish, brown bullhead, common carp, white catfish, fish species (unspecified) bottom fish, bass (unspecified), yellow bullhead, black crappie, flounder, white perch, scup, chain pickerel, bivalves (unspecified), lobster (unspecified), American lobster, tautog
MI common carp, rock bass, yellow perch, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike, muskellunge, white bass, lon gnose sucker, white perch, brown bullhead, bullhead (unspecified), bluegill, brown trout, siscowet trout, lake trout, coho salmon, chinook salmon, splake, catfish (unspecified), rainbow trout, sucker (unspecified), gizzard shad, freshwater drum, white sucker, lake whitefish fish species (unspecified), yellow bullhead, burbot, quillback carpsucker, channel catfish, black crappie, white cr appie, redhorse, smelt, lake stur geon crappie (unspecified), sauger, carpsucker (unspecified), sturgeon (unspecified), brook trout
MN yellow perch, brown bullhead, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, quillback carpsucker, brown trout, brook trout, lake trout, chinooksalmon, ciscowet, walleye, northern pike, muskellunge, splake, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, rock bass, white bass, rainbow trout, white sucker, bluegill, black crappie, white crappie, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse, common carp, smallmouth buffalo, sauger, bigmouth buffalo, channel catfish, lake whitefish, freshwater drum, pumpkinseed, lake herring, flathead catfish, bowfin, siscowet trout bass (unspecified), burbot, carp (unspecified), cisco, crappie (unspecified), redhorse, golden redhorse, coho salmon, lake sturgeon tullibee, redhorse sucker, chub bloater MS fish species (unspecified), catfish (unspecified) largemouth bass, spotted bass, king mackerel buffalo (unspecified) MO sturgeon (unspecified),
, buffalo (unspecified), sucker (unspecified), paddlefish, catfish (unspecified), redhorse, freshwater drum carp (unspecified), fish species (unspecified), sunfish common carp, channel catfish, flathead catfish
MT fish species (unspecified), largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, burbot, black crappie, yellow perch, northern pike, kokanee salmon, white sucker, brook trout, brown trout, bull trout, cutthroat trout, lake trout, rainbow trout, walleye, lake whitefish, mountain whitefishAPPENDIX D

D-7 NE common carp, channel catfish largemouth bass, catfish (unspecified), northern pike, fish species (unspecified)
NV fish species (unspecified) NH freshwater fish (unspecified), largemouth bass, bluefish, American lobster fish species (unspecified)
NJ striped bass, American eel, white perch, white catfish, fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass, bluefish, chain pickerel, blue crab, crustaceans (unspecified), American lobster, molluscs (unspecified)
NM white crappie, channel catfish, common carp, brown trout, river carpsucker, kokanee salmon, largemouth bass, bluegill, white bass, white sucker, yellow perch, black bullhead, black crappie, bass (unspecified), crappie (unspecified), rainbow trout, longnose dace, walleye, northern pike, bullhead (unspecified), black bass smallmouth bass, spotted bass trout (unspecified), carpsucker (unspecified)
NY common carp, lake trout, brown trout, yellow perch, smallmouth bass, splake, American eel, goldfish, striped bass, white perch, bluefish, largemouth bass, brown bullhead, white catfish, walleye, rainbow smelt, tiger muskell unge, white sucker, chinook salmon, c oho salmon, rainbow trout fish species (unspecified), sportfish (unspecified), channel catfish, Atlantic needlefish, blue crab, American lobster, brook trout northern pike NC largemouth bass, fish species (unspecified) bowfin, common carp, catfish (unspecified), white catfish, black crappie, white crappie, green sunfish, redear sunfish
ND walleye, white bass, yellow perch, northern pike, bigmouth buffalo, common carp, crappie (unspecified), white sucker, channel catfish, goldeye, sauger, smallmouth bass largemouth bass, brown bullhead, black crappie, white crappie, paddlefish, bluegill, brown trout, rainbow trout bullhead (unspecified), chinook salmon, carpsucker (unspecified), sunfish (unspecified)APPENDIX D

D-8 OH common carp, catfish (unspecified), white bass, sucker (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass, rock bass, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, hybrid striped bass, brown bullhead, yellow bullhead, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white crappie, freshwater drum, white perch, chinook salmon, coho salmon, sauger, white sucker, lake trout, steelhead trout, walleye OK largemouth bass catfish (unspecified) channel catfish, fish species (unspecified) OR fish species (unspecified), crayfish largescale sucker, brown trout, black crappie, squawfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, common carp, peamouth chub
PA white sucker, white perch, common carp, American eel, channel catfish, goldfish, largemouth bass, quillback carpsucker, white bass, lake trout, walleye, smallmouth bass, shorthead redhorse, sucker (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) spotted bass, hybrid striped bass, bowfin, flathead catfish, crappie, freshwater drum, muskellunge, northern pike, coho salmon, sauger, sunfish, bluegill, brown trout, rainbow trout, lake whitefish green sunfish
PR no fish consumption advisories
RI striped bass fish species (unspecified), bluefish SC fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass, bowfin, catfish (unspecified), channel catfish, bluegill sunfish, redear sunfish shellfish (unspecified)
SD no fish consumption advisories
TN catfish (unspecified), largemouth bass, common carp, striped bass, sauger, white bass, smallmouth buffalo, fish species (unspecified) hybrid striped bass, redbreast sunfish crappie (unspecified), rainbow trout
TX catfish (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) largemouth bass, hybrid striped bass, white bass, freshwater drum, king mackerel, crab (unspecified), blue crabAPPENDIX D

D-9 UT fish species (unspecified)
VT brown trout, lake trout fish species (unspecified) walleye
VA fish species (unspecified) smallmouth bass, striped bass, white bass, common carp, channel catfish, flathead catfish
VI no fish consumption advisories WA bottomfish species (unspecified), common carp, rockfish, shellfish (unspecified), crab (unspecified), sucker, bridgelip sucker, lake whitefish, mountain whitefish no fish consumption advisories in 1993
WV channel catfish, common carp, sucker (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) bottomfish species (unspecified), non-sportfish (unspecified), largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, hybrid striped bass, white bass, flathead catfish, freshwater drum, sauger
brown bullhead
WI coho salmon, chinook salmon, common carp, catfish (unspecified), splake, rainbow trout, lake trout, brown trout, siscowet trout, northern pike, white bass, white sucker, walleye, yellow perch, muskellunge, flathead catfish, freshwater drum, channel catfish, bullhead (unspecified), bluegill, black crappie, crappie (unspecified), rock bass, smallmouth bass, redhorse (unspecified), largemouth bass, lake sturgeon, buffalo (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) bigmouth buffalo, brown bullhead, carp (unspecified), c hub, lake herring, white perch, northern redhorse, sauger, sheepshead, smelt, green sunfish, pumpkinseed, lake whitefish, panfish species (unspecified)
brook trout
WY no fish consumption advisoriesAPPENDIX D

D-10 ESTUARINE/MARINE FISH AND SHELLFISH SPECIES FOR WHICH STATE CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES HAVE BEEN ISSUED

1993 and 1998 (Bold type) 1998 only (Normal type) 1993 only ( Italic type)

AL king mackerel no consumption advisories in 1993
AK no consumption advisories AS fish and shellfish species (unspecified) CA white croaker, black croaker, corbina, surfperch, queenfish, sculpin, rockfish, kelp bass, striped bass, fish and shellfish species (unspecified) bullhead, croaker (unspecified), gobies, shark CT striped bass, bluefish DE fish species (unspecified), striped bass, channel catfish, white catfish, white perch, carp, catfish (unspecified), largemouth bass no consumption advisories in 1993 DC no consumption advisories in 1998 channel catfish, American eel
FL shark (unspecified) gafftopsail catfish, crevalle jack, ladyfish, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, spotted sea trout, yellow bullhead, gar, warmouth sunfish, bowfin GA Atlantic croaker, black drum, red drum, flounder, silver perch, spotted sea trout, clams, blue crab, mussels, oysters no consumption advisories in 1993 GU no consumption advisories HI fish and shellfish species (unspecified) no consumption advisories in 1993
LA fish and shellfish species (unspecified) king mackerel ME striped bass, bluefish, American lobster, no consumption advisories in 1993
MD channel catfish, American eelAPPENDIX D

D-11 MA American eel, flounder, American lobster, bivalves (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) bottomfish (unspecified), scup, tautog MS king mackerel no consumption advisories in 1993 NH bluefish, American lobster no consumption advisories in 1993
NJ striped bass, bluefish, American eel, white perch, white catfish, blue crab
American lobster fish and shellfish species (unspecified)
NY American eel, striped bass, bluefish, white perch, white catfish, rainbow smelt, Atlantic needlefish, blue crab American lobster, fish species (unspecified), largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, common carp, goldfish, walleye NC fish species except herring, shad, striped bass, and shellfish species (unspecified)
OR no consumption advisories
PA white perch, channel catfish, American eel
PR no consumption advisories
RI striped bass, bluefish SC bluegill, bowfin, largemouth bass fish and shellfish species (unspecified)
TX blue crab, catfish (unspecified), fish species (unspecified) crab (unspecified), king mackerel VA no consumption advisories fish species (unspecified)
VI no consumption advisories WA bottomfish species (unspecified), rockfish, shellfish (unspecified), crab (unspecified) no consumption advisories in 1993APPENDIX D

D-12 SOURCES
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1993. National Listing of State Fish and Shellfish Consumption Advisories and Bans . (Current as of July 22, 1993.) Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories Database . Office of Water. Washington, DC.

# APPENDIX E

TARGET ANALYTES ANALYZED IN NATIONAL OR REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMSAPPENDIX E

(continued)

E-3 Table E-1. Target Analytes Analyzed in National or Regional Monitoring Programs Reviewed by the 1993 Fish Contaminant Workgroup Monitoring program Analyte a b c 1 de fgh
Metals Aluminum (Al)   Antimony (Sb)   Arsenic (As) (total)     Barium (Ba)  Beryllium (Be)   Cadmium (Cd)     Chromium (Cr)    Copper (Cu)     Cyanide  Iron (Fe)   Lead (Pb)     Manganese (Mn)   Mercury (Hg)    Methylmercury  Molybdenum  Nickel (Ni)   Selenium (Se)   Silicon (Si)  Silver (Ag)   Thallium (Tl)   Tin (Sn)  Tributyltin
Vanadium  Zinc (Zn)  
Pesticides
Aldrin   
Butachlor  Chlordane (cis & trans)    2  Chlorpyrifos 
Danitol Table E-1. (continued) APPENDIX E

Monitoring program Analyte a b c 1 de fgh

(continued)

E-4 DCPA (chlorthal)  DDT (total)   2,4’-DDD (2,4’-TDE)    4,4’-DDD (4,4’-TDE)    2,4’-DDE    4,4’-DDE   2,4’-DDT    4,4’-DDT   
Demeton 
Dicofol  
Dieldrin   Diphenyl disulfide 
Endosulfan

 -Endosulfan (endosulfan I) 
ß -Endosulfan (endosulfan II) 
Endosulfan sulfate 
Endrin    Endrin aldehyde  Ethyl-p-nitrophenylphenylphosphorothioate (EPN) 
Fonofos
Guthion  Heptachlor   Heptachlor epoxide    Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) also known as Benzene hexachloride (BHC)

 -Hexachlorocyclohexane  
ß -Hexachlorocyclohexane   
-Hexachlorocyclohexane  

 -Hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane)   Technical-hexachlorocyclohexane  Hexachlorophene  Isopropalin   Kepone Table E-1. (continued) APPENDIX E

Monitoring program Analyte a b c 1 de fgh

(continued)

E-5 Malathion  Methoxychlor  
Mirex  
Nitrofen 
cis-Nonachlor  
trans-Nonachlor  Oxychlordane  
Parathion  Toxaphene (mixture)   
Triazine herbicides
Trichloronate 
Trifluralin   Base/Neutral Organic Compounds Acenaphthene   Acenaphthylene  
Anthracene  
Benzidine  Benzo(a)anthracene   Benzo(a)pyrene   Benzo(e)pyrene  Benzo(b)fluoranthene   Benzo(k)fluoranthene   Benzo(g,h,i)perylene   Benzyl butyl phthalate  Biphenyl   4-Bromophenyl ether  bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane  bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether  bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether  bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) 
Chlorinated benzenes 2-Chloronaphthalene Table E-1. (continued) APPENDIX E

Monitoring program Analyte a b c 1 de fgh

(continued)

E-6 4-Chlorophenyl ether  Chrysene   Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene   Di-n-butyl phthalate  1,2-Dichlorobenzene  1,3-Dichlorobenzene  1,4-Dichlorobenzene  3,3 ’ -Dichlorobenzidine   Diethyl phthalate  2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene   2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene  Dimethyl phthalate  2,4-Dinitrotoluene  2,6-Dinitrotoluene  Di-n-octyl phthalate  1,2-Diphenylhydrazine  bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 
Fluoranthene  
Fluorene   Heptachlorostyrene  Hexachlorostyrene 
Hexachlorobenzene  
Hexachlorobutadiene   Hexachlorocyclopentadiene  
Hexachloroethane  Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene   Isophorone  4,4 ’ -Methylene bis(N,N ’ -dimethyl)aniline  1-Methylnaphthalene  2-Methylnaphthalene  1-Methylphenanthrene  Naphthalene  Table E-1. (continued) APPENDIX E

Monitoring program Analyte a b c 1 de fgh

(continued)

E-7 Nitrobenzene  N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine  N-Nitrosodimethylamine  N-Nitrosodiphenylamine  N-Nitrosodipropylamine  Octachlorostyrene   PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) PBBs (polybrominated biphenyls)  PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)   Aroclor 1016 (mixture)   Aroclor 1221 (mixture)   Aroclor 1232 (mixture)   Aroclor 1242 (mixture)   Aroclor 1248 (mixture)   Aroclor 1254 (mixture)   Aroclor 1260 (mixture)   Selected individual congeners  Pentachloroanisole (PCA)  
Pentachlorobenzene   Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)   Pentachlorophenyl methyl ether Pentachlorophenyl methyl sulfide Pentachlorostyrene 
Perthane   Perylene 
Phenanthrene   Pyrene   Terphenyl  1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene   1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene   1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene   1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Table E-1. (continued) APPENDIX E

Monitoring program Analyte a b c 1 de fgh

(continued)

E-8 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene   1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene   Triphenyl phosphate 
Dioxins 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzodioxin (PeCDD)   2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD)    1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin (HpCDD)   1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin (HxCDD)   1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin (HxCDD)   1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin (HxCDD)  
Dibenzofurans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF)   1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF)   1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)   1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)   1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)   2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)   1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF)   2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF)   2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)   Acidic Organic Compounds Chlorinated phenols
4-Chloro-3-cresol  2-Chlorophenol  2,4-Dichlorophenol  2,4-Dimethylphenol  4,6-Dinitro-2-cresol  2-4-Dinitrophenol  2-Nitrophenol  4-Nitrophenol  Pentachlorophenol (PCP)  Table E-1. (continued) APPENDIX E

Monitoring program Analyte a b c 1 de fgh

(continued)

E-9 Phenol  2,4,6-Trichlorophenol  Volatile Organic Compounds
Acrolein  Acrylonitrile 
Benzene 
Bromodichloromethane 
Bromoform 
Bromomethane 
Carbon tetrachloride 
Chlorobenzene 
Chloroethane  2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 
Chloroform 
Chloromethane 
Dibromochloromethane  1,1-Dichloroethane  1,2-Dichloroethane  1,1-Dichloroethene  trans-1,2-Dichloroethene  1,2-Dichloropropane  cis-1,3-Dichloropropene  trans-1,3-Dichloropropene  Ethylbenzene  Methylene chloride  1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 
Tetrachloroethene 
Toluene  1,1,1-Trichloroethane  1,1,2-Trichloroethane 
Trichloroethene  Vinyl chloride Table E-1. (continued) APPENDIX E

E-10 1 Contaminants listed were monitored by at least one Great Lakes state. NOTE: Contaminants monitored exclusively by the Canadian Province of Ontario were not included.
2 Only the cis -isomer is monitored.

a 301(h) Monitoring Program. Source: U.S. EPA. 1985. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 1. Estimating the Potential for Bioaccumulation of Priority Pollutants and 301(h) Pesticides Discharged into Marine and Estuarine Waters. EPA 503/3-90-001. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.

b National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Source: U.S. EPA. 1992. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volumes I and II. EPA 823/R-92-008a and 008b. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

c Great Lakes Sport Fish Contaminant Advisory Program. Source: Hesse, J. L. 1990. Summary and Analyses of Existing Sportfish Consumption Advisory Programs in the Great Lakes Basin—the Great Lakes. Fish Consumption Advisory Task Force, Michigan Department of Health, Lansing, MI.

d NOAA Status and Trends Program. Source: NOAA. 1989. National Status and Tr ends Program for Marine Environmental Quality--Progress Report: A Summary of Selected Data on Tissue Contamination from the First Three Years (1986-1988) of the Mussel Watch Project. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 49. U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.

e EPA National Dioxin Study. Source: U.S. EPA. 1987. National Dioxin Study. Tiers 3, 5, 6 and 7. EPA 440/4-87-003. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

f U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program. Sources: C. J. Schmitt, J. L. Zajicek, and P. H. Peterman. 1990. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: Residues of organochlorine chemicals in U.S. freshwater fish, 1976-1984. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:748-781; and T. P. Lowe, T. W. May, W. G. Brumbaugh, and D. A. Kane. 1985. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: Concentrations of seven elements in freshwater fish, 1978-1981. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:363-388.

g U.S. EPA. 1991. Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters. Draft. Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

h U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Source: J.K. Crawford and S.N. Luoma. 1993. Guidelines for Studies of Contaminants in Biological tissues for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program

. USGS Open-File Report 92-494. U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA.

# APPENDIX F

PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES RECOMMENDED AS TARGET ANALYTESAPPENDIX F

F-3See notes and references at end of table.(continued)Table F-1. Pesticides and Herbicides Recommended as Target AnalytesPesticideFamilyUseRegistrationEPAtoxicityclassaEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationbMetal Containing PesticidesArsenicals (includingarsenic acid, arsenictrioxide, copperacetoarsenite, leadarsenate, calciumarsenate, sodiumarsenite)InorganicarsenicalsA variety of inorganic arsenic compounds are usedas herbicides, fungicides, insecticides androdenticides, but registered uses of some weresuperseded because of their hazard to man andother nontarget species (Farm Chemicals Handbook,1989)Some inorganic arsenic compoundregistrations have been canceled; others areunder restricted use application and othersare in special review (U.S. EPA, 1993)I ATributyltins (tribytytinoxide)Organotins A variety of organotin compounds are used as woodpreservatives, antifoulants, biocides, anddisinfectants (Farm Chemicals Handbook, 1989)Some organotin compounds have beenactively registered since the mid-1960s.Several registrations have been canceled ormanufacturers discontinued production (U.S.EPA, 1988a)II DOrganochlorinesChlordaneChlorinatedcyclodieneTermite control. Historically used for control of fireants, cutworms, grasshoppers, and on other insectson corn, grapes, strawberries, and other crops and asa dip for nonfood roots and tips of plants (Hartley andKidd, 1987).In March 1978, EPA issued a cancellationproceeding on chlordane, allowing only limiteduse on certain crops and pests until July1983, but no use thereafter except forunderground termite control (43 FR 12372).All uses were canceled in 1988.IIB2DDTChlorinatedhydrocarbonInsecticideAll uses in U.S. were canceled as ofJanuary 1, 1973, except for emergency publichealth uses.IIIB2DicofolChlorinatedhydrocarbonMiticide/pesticide on many fruit, vegetable,ornamental, and field crops. Used to control mites oncotton and citrus (80%). Other uses include controlof mites on ornamental plants, fruits, and vegetables.Most of the usage is in California and Florida (U.S.EPA, 1998b).Active registration since 1957.cIIICdDieldrinChlorinatedcyclodieneFormerly used to control locusts, tropical diseasecarriers (e.g., mosquitoes), and termites, use aswood preservative, and moth proofing for woolenclothes and carpets (Worthing, 1991).All uses on food products were suspended in1974 (ATSDR, 1993). All registered uses inthe U.S. were canceled in 1985.IIB2Endosulfan (I and II) Chlorinatedbicyclid sulfiteInsecticide and acaricide on citrus, deciduous, smallfruits, coffee, tea, fiber crops, forage crops, forest,grains, nuts, oil crops, tobacco, ornamentals, andvegetables (ATSDR, 1999).Active registration since 1954.cI EeAPPENDIX F

F-4Table F-1. (continued)PesticideFamilyUseRegistrationEPAtoxicityclassaEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationbSee notes and references at end of table.(continued)EndrinChlorinatedcyclodieneHistorically used to control cotton bollworms, as afoliar treatment for citrus, potatoes, small grains,apple orchards, sugarcane, and as flower and barktreatment on trees. Endrin has also been used tocontrol populations of birds and rodents (U.S. EPA,1980).In 1964, endrin persistence in soils led tocancellation of its use on tobacco (U.S. EPA,1980). By 1979, specified uses on cotton,small grains, apple orchards, sugarcane andornamentals were also restricted (44 FR43632). All uses in the U.S. were canceled in1984 (U.S. EPA, 1984a).I DHeptachlor epoxide ChlorinatedcyclodieneHeptachlor epoxide is an oxidation product ofheptachlor. It is a contaminant of both heptachlorand chlordane. Heptachlor was widely used as atermiticide and insecticide, primarily for ant control(Hodges, 1977). Chlordane was widely used fortermite control as well as for control of fire ants,cutworms, grasshoppers and other insects (Hartleyand Kidd, 1987).Restrictions on heptachlor were first institutedin 1978 and heptachlor has not been sold inthe U.S. since August 1987 (ATSDR, 1987).NAB2Hexachlorobenzene ChlorinatedbenzenePrimary use prior to 1985 was as a fungicide seedprotectant in small grain crops, particularly wheat.Registration for all uses was canceled in 1984(Morris and Cabral, 1986).IVB2Lindane(-hexachlorocyclohexane)ChlorinatedhydrocarbonSeed treatments, soil treatments for tobaccotransplants, foliage applications on fruit and nut trees,vegetables, and wood and timber protection (ATSDR,1998).Active registration. Use of lindane in smokefumigation devices for indoor domesticpurposes was banned in 1985 (48 FR 48512,50 FR 5424). Use in dog dips permitted onlyfor veterinary use (U.S. EPA, 1985a).Application permitted only under supervisionof certified applicator (U.S. EPA, 1985a).cIIB2eMirexChlorinatedcyclodieneHistorically used primarily in fire ant control insoutheastern states (Kutz et al., 1985) and was usedindustrially as a fire retardant and polymerizing agentin plastics under the name dechlorane (ATSDR,1995).Registration for all uses on field crops wascanceled in 1977 (41 FR 56703) (NAS, 1978).IIB2fToxapheneChlorinatedcampheneHistorically used extensivelyon cotton (Farm Chemicals Handbook, 1989).Registration for all uses was canceled in 1982(47 FR 53784) and uses were canceled in1990 (55 FR 31164-31174).IIB2APPENDIX F

F-5Table F-1. (continued)PesticideFamilyUseRegistrationEPAtoxicityclassaEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationbSee notes and references at end of table.(continued)OrganophosphatesChlorpyrifosHeterocyclicorganothiophosphateInsecticide primarily used to control soil and foliarinsect pests on cotton, peanuts, and sorghum(Worthing, 1983; U.S. EPA, 1986a). In addition, it isused to control root-infesting and boring insects on avariety of fruits (e.g., citrus crops, apples, bananas,peaches, grapes, nectarines), nuts (e.g., almonds,walnuts), vegetables (e.g., beans, broccoli, brusselsprouts, cauliflower, soybeans, cabbage, peas) andfield crops (e.g., alfalfa and corn) (U.S. EPA, 1986a)and to control ticks on cattleand sheep (Thomson,1985). As a household insecticide it has been usedto control ants, cockroaches, fleas, and mosquitoes(Worthing, 1983) and is registered for use incontrolling subsurface termites in California (U.S.EPA, 1983).Active registration since 1965 (U.S. EPA,1984b).cUse patterns will change by the endof 2001. Virtually all residential use will end,as will use on tomatoes. Use on apples andgrapes will be substantially reduced (U.S.EPA, 2000).IIEgDiazinonHeterocyclicorganothiophosphateInsecticide and nematicide for control of soil insectsand pests of fruits, vegetables, tobacco, forage, fieldcrops, range, pasture, grasslands, and ornamentals.Used to control cockroaches and other householdinsects; and grubs and nematodes in turf; as a seedtreatment and for fly control (Farm ChemicalsHandbook, 1989).Active registration since 1952 (U.S. EPA,1986b).cIINot likelyeDisulfotonAliphaticorganothiophosphateSystemic insecticide and acaricide on grain, nut,cole, and root crops; pome, strawberry, andpineapple fruits; forage, field and vegetable crops,sugarcane, seed crops, forest plantings, ornamentalsand potted plants (houseplants) (U.S. EPA, 1984c).Active registration since 1958 (U.S. EPA,1984c).cI EeEthionOrganothiophosphateInsecticide (nonsystemic) for control of leaf-feedinginsects, mites, and scale insects. Citrus accounts for86%-89% of total pounds of ethion used in the U.S.with the remaining 11%-14% applied to cotton, avariety of fruit trees, nut trees, and vegetables (U.S.EPA, 1989).Active registration since 1965 (U.S. EPA,1989).cIIEeAPPENDIX F

F-6Table F-1. (continued)PesticideFamilyUseRegistrationEPAtoxicityclassaEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationb(continued)TerbufosOrganothiophosphateSystemic insecticide and nematicide on corn, sugarbeets, and grain sorghum (U.S. EPA, 1985c).Active since 1974; however, granular end-useproducts containing 15% or more terbufoswere classified as "Restricted Use" afterSeptember 1985 (U.S. EPA, 1985c; 1985b).cI EeChlorophenoxy HerbicidesOxyfluorfenDiphenyl ether Pre- and postemergence herbicide for a widespectrum of annual broadleaf weeds and grasses inapples, artichokes, corn, cotton, tree fruit, grapes,nuts, spearmint, peppermint, certain topicalplantation, and ornamental crops (Farm ChemicalsHandbook, 1989)Active since 1979.cIVCeaDesignations are from EPA (1998a):I = Oral LD50up to and including 50 mg/kg in laboratory animals.II = Oral LD50>50 through 500 mg/kg in laboratory animals.III = Oral LD50>500 through 5,000 mg/kg in laboratory animals.IV = Oral LD50>5,000 mg/kg in laboratory animals.NA = No value available.bDesignations are from IRIS (1999) unless otherwise noted: NA = not available; A = human carcinogen; B1, B2 = probable human carcinogen; C = possible human carcinogen;D = not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity; E = evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.cThis pesticide has an active registration for agricultural use. The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs is responsible for registration and reregistration of pesticides. The 1988Amendment of FIFRA requires EPA to reregister each "registered pesticide containing any active ingredient contained in any pesticide first registered before November 1, 1984,except for any pesticide as to which the Administration has determined, after November 1, 1984 . . . . that—(1) there are no outstanding data requirements; and (2) therequirements of section 3(c)(5) have been satisfied" (U.S. EPA, 1988b). The Agency will review all relevant data submitted bythe registrant for each pesticide reregistration andwill use the data to conduct a risk assessment. Any subsequent regulatory action will be based on the results of the risk assessment. If the data submitted are incomplete at thepredetermined review time, the pesticide may be suspended. Under the provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, all pesticides with active registrations areundergiong review to determine if restrictions on their use are necessary for the protection of the health of infants and children. Contact EPA for further information on the status ofthe review process for specific pesticides.dEPA carcinogenicity classification based on Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Dicofol (U.S. EPA, 1998b).eEPA carcinogenicity classification based on List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential (U.S. EPA, 1999).fEPA carcinogenicity classification based on HEAST, (1997).gEPA carcinogenicity classification based on Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos (U.S. EPA 2000).Note:The potential human toxicity of currently regulated pesticides is undergoing assessment as a result of provisions of the FoodQuality Protection Act (1996). Consult EPA forthe latest assessment information on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/status.htm.APPENDIX F

F-7Table F-1. (continued)(continued)References:ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1987.Draft Toxicological Profile for Heptachlor. U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC.ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1993.Toxicological Profile for Aldrin/Dieldrin (Update).U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC.ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1995.Toxicological Profile for Mirex/Chlordecone.. U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC.ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1998.Toxicological Profile for Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane(Update). U.S. Public HealthService, Washington, DC.ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1999.Draft Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan.U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC.Farm Chemicals Handbook.1989. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, OH.Hartley, D., and H. Kidd (eds.). 1987.Agrochemicals Handbook. Royal Society of Chemistry, Nottingham, England.Hodges, L. 1977.Environmental Pollution.Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.Kutz,F.W., S.C. Strassman, C.R. Stroup, J.C. Carra, C.C. Leininger, D.L. Watts, and C.M. Sparacino. 1985. The human body burden of mirex in the southeastern United States.J.Toxicol. and Environ. Health15:385-394.Morris, C.R., and J.R.P. Cabral (eds.). 1986. Hexachlorobenzene: Proceedings of an International Symposium.IARC Scientific Publication No. 77. World Health Organication,Lyon, France.NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1978.Kepone/Mirex/Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: An Environmental Assessment.National Academy of Sciences, National ResearchCouncil, Washington, DC.Thomson, W.T. 1985. Agricultural Chemicals Book I - Insecticide, 1985 revision. Thomas Publication, Davis, CA.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980.Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Endrin.EPA-440/5-80-047. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983.Analyses of the Risksand Benefits of Seven Chemicals Used for Subterranean Termite Control. EPA-540/9-83-005.Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1984a. Internal memorandum from G. LaRocca to B. Burnam et al., August 16, 1984. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington,DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1984b.Pesticide Fact Sheet—Chlorpyrifos. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1984c.Pesticide Fact Sheet—Disulfoton. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985a.Guidance for the Registration of Pesticide Products Containing Lindane as the Active Ingredient.EPA-540/RS-86-121.U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985b.Suspended, Cancelled, and Restricted Pesticides.U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington,DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985c.Pesticide Fact Sheet—Terbufos. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986a.Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorpyrifos. EPA-440/5-86-005. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986b.Pesticide Fact Sheet—Diazinon. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,Washington, DC.APPENDIX F

F-8Table F-1. (continued)U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988a.Pesticide Fact Sheet—Tributyltin Antifouling Paint.Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of PesticidePrograms, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988b.The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as Amended. EPA-540/09-89-012. Office of PesticidePrograms, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989.Pesticide Fact Sheet—Ethion. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Suspended, Cancelled, and Restricted Pesticides. Document 20T-1002, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993.Status of Pesticides in Reregistration and Special Review. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA 738-R-93-009. Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a.Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.1000. Acute Toxicity Testing—Background: Prevention, Pesticides andToxic Substances. EPA-712-C-98-189. Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b.Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Dicofol. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999.List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential. Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division, Washington,DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000.Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.Worthing, C.R. 1991.The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium.9th edition. British Crop Protection Council, Croydon, England.

# APPENDIX G

TARGET ANALYTE DOSE-RESPONSE VARIABLES AND ASSOCIATED INFORMATIONAPPENDIX G

G-3See notes and references at end of table.(continued)Table G-1. Target Analyte Dose-Response Variables and Associated InformationTarget analyteNoncarcinogens CarcinogensRfDa(degree ofconfidence;uncertaintyfactor) Critical toxic effectCSFb(discussion ofconfidence)CriticalcarcinogeniceffectcEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationdMetalsArsenic (inorganic) 3 × 10!4(medium; 3)Hyperpigmentation,keratosis and possiblevascular complications inhumans1.5 — ACadmium 1 × 10!3(high; 10)Significant proteinurea inhumansNA — B1Mercury (asmethylmercury)1 × 10!4 e(medium; 10)Developmental neurological abnormalities inhuman infantsNA — CSeleniumf5 × 10!3(high; 3)Selenosis in humans NA — DTributylting3 x 10-4(high; 100)Immunotoxicity in rats NA — DOrganochlorine PesticidesChlordane (sum ofcisandtrans-chlordane,cisandtrans-nonachlor, andoxychlordane)h5 × 10!4(medium; 300)Hepatic necrosis in mice 0.35(Adequate number ofanimals observed. CSFis the geometric meanof CSFs for five datasets).Hepatocellular carcinomas in5 strains of mice (male andfemale)B2DDT (sum of 4,4'- and2,4'- isomers of DDT,DDE, and DDD)i5 × 10!4(medium; 100)Liver lesions in rats 0.34(CSF is geometricmean of CSFs from 10data sets.DDT: Liver tumors in sevenstudies in various mousestrains and three studies inthree rat strainsB2APPENDIX G

G-4Table G-1. (continued)Target analyteNoncarcinogens CarcinogensRfDa(degree ofconfidence;uncertaintyfactor) Critical toxic effectCSFb(discussion ofconfidence)CriticalcarcinogeniceffectcEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationdSee notes and references at end of table.(continued)Dicofol4 x 10-4 j(NA, 300)Inhibition of ACTHstimulated release ofcortisol in both sexes in1-yr dog feeding study.NA —CkDieldrin5×10-5(medium; 100)Liver lesions (focalproliferation and focalhyperplasia) in one strainof female rats16(CSF is the geometricmean of CSFs from 13data sets. IndividualCSFs ranged within afactor of 8.)Liver carcinomas in fivestrains of mice (male andfemale)B2Endosulfan(sum of endosulfan I andII)6×10-3(medium; 100)Decreased body weightgain in male and femalerat and progressiveglomerulonephrosis andblood vessel aneurysms inone strain of male ratsNA—ElEndrin3×10-4(medium; 100)Mild histological lesions inlivers, occasional convulsions in dogs (both sexes)NA—DHeptachlor epoxide 1.3×10-5(low; 1000)Increased liver-to-bodyweight ratios in male andfemale dogs9.1(Adequate number ofanimals observed inboth studies, butsurvival in one studywas low. This CSF isconsistent with CSF =5.8 for one strain ofseven rats.)Hepatocellular carcinomas intwo strains of mice (male andfemale)B2APPENDIX G

G-5Table G-1. (continued)Target analyteNoncarcinogens CarcinogensRfDa(degree ofconfidence;uncertaintyfactor) Critical toxic effectCSFb(discussion ofconfidence)CriticalcarcinogeniceffectcEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationdSee notes and references at end of table.(continued)Hexachlorobenzene 8×10-4(medium; 100)Liver effects (hepaticcentrilobular basophilicchromogenesis) in onestrain of rats (both sexes)1.6(Significant increases inmalignant tumorsobserved among anadequate number ofanimals observed fortheir lifetime.)Hepatocellular carcinomas inone strain of rats (femalesonly)B2Lindane (-HCH)3×10-4(medium; 1,000)Liver and kidney toxicity(liver hypertrophy, kidneytubular degeneration,hyaline droplets, tubulardistension, interstitialnephritis, and basophilictubules) in both sexes ofone strain of rats1.3m—B2/ClMirex2×10-4(high; 300)Liver cytomegaly, fattymetamorphosis,angiectasis and thyroidcystic follicles in one strainof rats.NA—B2mToxaphene2.5 x 10-4 n(NA, 1,000)Slight liverdegeneration—granularityand vacuolization ofhepatocytes.1.1(Adequate number ofanimals observed. Adose-response effectwas seen in a studywith three non-zerodose levels.)Hepatocellular carcinomasand neoplastic nodules inone strain of mice (malesonly)B2APPENDIX G

G-6Table G-1. (continued)Target analyteNoncarcinogens CarcinogensRfDa(degree ofconfidence;uncertaintyfactor) Critical toxic effectCSFb(discussion ofconfidence)CriticalcarcinogeniceffectcEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationdSee notes and references at end of table.(continued)OrganophosphatePesticidesChlorpyrifos3 x 10-4 o(NA, 10)Decreased plasma ChEactivity observed in variousanimal feeding studies.NA—EoDiazinon7 x 10-4 p(NA, 30)Inhibition of plasma ChEobserved in 90-d ratfeeding study.NA—Not likely ElDisulfoton4 x 10-5(medium, 100)ChE inhibition anddegeneration of the opticnerve observed in 2-yr ratfeeding study.NA—ElEthion5 x 10-4(medium, 100)Plasma ChE inhibition (in21-d human feeding study)and inhibition of brain ChEobserved in 90-d dogfeeding study.NA—ElTerbufos2 x 10-5 q(NA, 300)Inhibition of plasma ChEobserved in 28-d dogfeeding study.NA—ElChlorophenoxy HerbicidesOxyfluorfen3 x 10-3(high, 100)Increased absolute liverweight and nonneoplasticlesions observed in 20-momouse feeding study.7.32 x 10-2 lEvidence of carcinogenicity(liver tumors) in mice.ClAPPENDIX G

G-7Table G-1. (continued)Target analyteNoncarcinogens CarcinogensRfDa(degree ofconfidence;uncertaintyfactor) Critical toxic effectCSFb(discussion ofconfidence)CriticalcarcinogeniceffectcEPAcarcinogenicityclassificationdSee notes and references at end of table.(continued)PAHsrBenzo[a]pyrene NA—7.3(Data less than optimal,but acceptable. Fourdata sets used from twodifferent studies usingtwo different species(rats and mice; bothsexes) to derivegeometric mean of fourcalculated slopefactors.)Squamous cell carcinoma ofthe forestomach in one strainof mice (both sexes).Forestomach, larynx, andesophagus papillomas andcarcinomas in one strain ofrats (both sexes)B2PCBsTotal PCBs (sum ofAroclors)2 x 10-5s(medium; 300)Ocular exudate, inflamed,prominent Meibomianglands, distorted growth offingernails, and toenails,decreased antibodyresponse to sheeperythrocytes in monkeyclinical and immunologicstudies2.0t(Adequate number ofanimals observed fortheir normal lifespan.Only one non-zero testdose used.)Trabecularcarcinomas/adenocarcinomas, neoplastic nodules inone strain of rats (femalesonly)B2Dioxins/furansNA—1.56×105uNAB2uNA = Not available in IRIS (1992).PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenyls.DDT = p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane.DDD = p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethylene.DDE = p,p’-Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane.APPENDIX G

G-8Table G-1. (continued)(continued)aRfD = Oral reference dose (mg/kg-d); from IRIS (1999) unless otherwise noted (see Section 5.1.1).bCSF = Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg-d)!1; from IRIS (1999) unless otherwise noted (see Section 5.1.2).cThe critical effect is the effect observed in oral dose response studies used to determine the CSF.dExcept where noted, all EPA carcinogenicity classifications are taken from IRIS (1999):A = Human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence from epidemiologic studies.B1 = Probable human carcinogen based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity to humans.B2 = Probable human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no data in humans.C = Possible human carcinogen based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in the absence of human data.D = Not classifiable based on lack of data or inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity from human or animal data.E = No evidence of carcinogenicity for humans (no evidence of carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in differentspecies or in bothepidemiologic and animal studies).eThe RfD for methylmercury should be considered an interim value. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted an independent assessment of theRfD and concluded,“On the basis of its evaluation, the committee consensus is that the value of EPA’s current RfD for a scientifically justifiable level for theprotection of human health.”(NAS 2000).fThe evidence of carcinogenicity for various selenium compounds in animals and mutagenicity studies is conflicting and difficultto interpret. However,evidence for selenium sulfides is sufficient for a B2 classification (IRIS, 1999).gThe oral RfD and cancer classification are for tributyltin oxide (IRIS, 1999).hThe RfD and CSF values listed are derived from studies using technical-grade chlordane (IRIS, 1999) for thecis-andtrans-chlordane isomers or the majorchlordane metabolite, oxychlordane, or for the chlordane impuritiescis-andtrans-nonachlor. It is recommended that the total chlordane concentration bedetermined by summing the individual concentrations ofcis- andtrans-chlordane,cis- andtrans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.iThe RfD value listed is for DDT. The CSF value is for total DDT (sum of DDT, DDE, and DDD) or DDE; the CSF value for DDD is 0.24. The U.S. EPACarcinogenicity Assessment Group recommended the use of CSF = 0.34 for any combination of DDT, DDE, DDD, and dicofol (Holder, 1986). It isrecommended that the total concentration of the 2,4'- and 4,4'-isomers of DDT and its metabolites, DDE and DDD, be determined.jThe RfD value is from a memorandum dated December 12, 1997. Dicofol: Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. HEDDocument No. 012439 (U.S. EPA, 1997b).kEPA carcinogenicity classification based on Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Dicofol (U.S. EPA, 1998b).lEPA carcinogenicity classification based on U.S. EPA, (1999).mEPA CSF based on HEAST (1997).nReference dose information is taken from the Office of Pesticide Programs Reference Dose Tracking Report (U.S. EPA, 1997a).oOral RfD based on the Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos (U.S. EPA, 2000).pThe RfD value is from a memorandum dated April 1, 1998, Diazinon: Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. HED Doc. No.012558 (U.S. EPA, 1998a).qThe RfD value listed is from a memorandum dated September 25, 1997; Terbufos-FQPA Requirement- Report of the Hazard Identification Review. (U.S. EPA,1997c).APPENDIX G

G-9Table G-1. (continued)(continued)rThis CSF is for benzo[a]pyrene (IRIS, 1999). There are no other RfDs or CSFs listed for other PAHs in IRIS (1999). It is recommended that, tissue samplesbe analyzed for benzo[a]pyrene and 14 other PAHs (Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1993) and that the order-of-magnitude relative potencies given forthese PAHs be used to calculate a potency equivalency concentration (PEC) for each sample for comparison with the recommended SV for benzo[a]pyrene(see Section 5.3.2.4).sThis RfD for PCBs is based on the chronic toxicity of Aroclor 1254 (IRIS, 1999).tThis CSF is based on a carcinogenicity assessment of Aroclor 1260, 1254, 1242, and 1016. The CSF represented is the upper bound slope factor for foodchain exposure. The central estimate is 1.0 (IRIS, 1999).uThe CSF value listed is for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD (HEAST, 1997). It is recommended that, in both screening and intensive studies,the 17 tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and the 12 dioxin-like PCBs be determined and a toxicityweighted total concentration be calculated for each sample for comparison with the recommended SV, using the method for estimating Toxicity EquivalencyConcentration (TEQ) (Van den Berg et al., 1998).References:HEAST. 1997.Health Effects Summary Tables. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Holder, J.W. 1986.The Assessment of the Carcinogenicity of Dicofol (Kelthane), DDT, DDE, and DDD (TDE). EPA-600/6-86/001. Carcinogenicity AssessmentGroup, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2000.Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury.National Research Council, Washington, DC.Nisbet and LaGoy. 1992. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol.16:290-300.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993.Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.EPA/600/R-93/089. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a.Reference Dose Tracking Report. Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division, Washington,DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. Memorandum dated December 12, 1997.Dicofol: Report of the Hazard Identification AssessmentReview Committee.. HED DOC No. 012439. Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997c.Terbufos-FQPA Requirement–Report of the Hazardous Assessment Identification Review. Office ofPesticide Programs, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Memorandum dated April 1, 1998.Diazinon: Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment ReviewCommittee.HED DOC No. 012558. Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b.Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Dichofol. Office of Pesticide Programs and Toxic Substances,Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999.Classification List of Chemical Evaluated for Carcinogenicity Potential.Office of Pesticide Programs,Washington, DC.U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000.Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington,DC.Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for human and wildlife. Environ. Health Perspec. 106(12):775-792.

# APPENDIX H

A RECOMMENDED METHOD FOR INORGANIC ARSENIC ANALYSIS

Extracted from:
Crecelius, E.A., N.S. Bloom, C.E. Cowan, and E.A. Jenne. 1986. Speciation of Selenium and Arsenic in Natural Waters and Sediments . Volume 2: Arsenic Speciation, Section 2, in EPRI report #EA-4641, Vol. 2, pp. 2–1 to 2–28.APPENDIX H

H-3 

## APPENDIX H

A RECOMMENDED METHOD FOR INORGANIC ARSENIC ANALYSIS

Note: EPA is currently revising Method 1632: Determination inorganic arsenic in water by hydride generation flame atomic absorption to incl ude fish tissue.2-1 Section 2

DETERMINATION OF ARSENIC SPECIES IN LIMNOLOGICAL SAMPLES

BY HYDRIDE GENERATION ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY

INTRODUCTION
This section describes the analytical methods used to determine the arsenic species in waters and sediments. Also, sample storage tests were conducted to select methods of storing and shipping environmental samples that would minimize changes in speciation. Based on results of previous studies we selected hydride generation coupled with atomic absorption spectroscopy as ithe method of quantification of arsenic. In this technique arsenate, arsenite, methylarsonic acid, and dimethylarsinic acid are volatilized from solution at a specific pH after reduction to the corresponding arsines with sodium borohydride (1). The volatilized arsines are then swept onto a liquid nitrogen cooled chromatographic trap, which upon warming, allows for a separation of species based on boiling points. The released arsines are swept by helium carrier gas into a quartz cuvette burner cell (2), where they are decomposed to atomic arsenic. Arsenic concentrations are determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Strictly speaking, this technique does not determine the species of inorganic arsenic but rather the valence states of arsenate (V) and arsenite (III). The actual species of inorganic arsenic are assumed to be those predicted by the geochemical equilibrium model described in Section 1 of this report.

EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
Apparatus
The apparatus needed for the volatilization, separation and quantitation of arsenic species is shown schematically in Figure 2-1-a. Briefly, it consists of a reaction vessel, in which arsenic compounds are reduced to volatile arsines, a liquid nitrogen cooled gas chromatographic trap, and a H-2 flame atomic absorption detector.

Reaction Vessel . The reaction vessel is made by grafting a side-arm inlet onto a 30-ml "Midget Impinger" (Ace Glass #7532-20), as illustrated in Figure 2-1-b. The 8-mm diameter side arm maythen be sealed with a silicone rubber-stopper type septum (Ace Glass #9096-32) to allow the airfree injection of sodium borohydride. The standard impinger assembly is replaced with a 4-way Teflon stopcock impinger (Laboratory Data control #700542) to allow rapid and convenient switching of the helium from the purge to the analysis mode of operation.
GC Trap . The low temperature GC trap is constructed from a 6 mm o.d. borosilicate glass U-tube about 30-cm long with a 2-cm radius of bend (or similar dimensions to fit into a tall widemouth Dewar flask. Before packing the trap, it is silanized to reduce the number of active adsorption sites
on the glass. This is accomplished using a standard glass silanizing compound such as Sylon-Ct ® (Supelco Inc.). The column is half-packed with 15% 0V-3 on Chromasorb ® WAW-DMCS (45-602-2 mesh). A finer mesh size should not be used, as the restriction of the gas flow is sufficient to overpressurize the system. After packing, the ends of the trap are plugged with silanized glass wool.
The entire trap assembly is then preconditioned as follows: The input side of the trap (nonpacked side) is connected via silicone rubber tubing to helium at a flow rate of 40-ml • min -1 and the whole assembly is placed into an oven at 175 ° C for 2 hours. After this time, two 25-μl aliquots of GC column conditioner (Silyl-8 ® , Supelco Inc.) are injected by syringe through the silicone tubing into the glass tubing. The column is then left in the oven with helium flowir,g through it for 24 hours. This process, which further neutralizes active adsorption sites and purges the system of foreign volatiles, may be repeated whenever anaiate peaks are observed to show broadening.
Once the column is conditioned, it is evenly wrapped with about 1.8 m of nichrome wire (22 gauge) the ends of which are affixed to crimp on electrical contacts. The wire-wr apped column is then coated about 2-mm thick all over with silicone rubber caulking compound and allowed to dry overnight. The silicone rubber provides an insulating layer which enhances peak separation by providing a longer temperature ramp time.
The wnpacked side of the column is connected via silicone r ubber tubing to the output from the reaction vessel. The output side of the trap is connected by a nichrome-wire wrapped piece of 6- mm diameter borosilicate tubing to the input of the flame atomizer. It is very important that the system be heated everywhere (~80 ° C) from the trap to the atomizer to avoid the condensation of water. Such condensation can interfere with the determination of dimethylarsine. All glass-to-glass connections in the system are made with silicone rubber sleeves.

Atomizer . The eluted arsines are detected by flame atomic absorption, using a special atomizer designed by Andreae (2). This consists of a quartz cross tube as shown in Figure 2-1-c. Air is admitted into one of the 6-mm o.d. side tubes (optimal flows are given in Table 2-1), while a mixture of hydrogen and the carrier gas from the trap is admitted into the other. This configuration is superior to that in which the carrier gas is mixed with the air (Andreae, personal communication 1983) due to the reduction of flame noise and possible extinguishing of the flame by microexplosions when H2 is generated in the reaction vessel. To light the flame, all of the gases are turned on, and a flame brought to the ends of the quartz cuvette. At this point a flame will be burning out of the ends of the tube . After allowing the quartz tube to heat up (~5 minutes) a flat metal spatula is put smoothly first over one end of the tube, and then the other. An invisible air/hydrogen flame should now be burning in the center of the cuvette. This may be checked by placing a mirror near the tube ends and checking for water condensation. Note that the flame must be burning only inside the cuvette for precise, noise-free operation of the detector.
Precision and sensitivity are affected by the gas flow rates and these must be individually optimized for each system, using the figures in Table 2-1 as an initial guide. We have observed that as the O 2 /H 2 ratio goes up, the sensitivity increases and the precision decreases. As this system is inherently very sensitive, adjustments are made to maximize precision.

Detector . Any atomic absorption unit may serve as a detector, once a bracket has been built to hold the quartz cuvette burner in the wave path. This work has been done using a Perkin-Elmer Model 5000 ® spectrophotometer with electrodeless discharge arsenic lamp. An analytical wavelength of 197.3 nm and slit width of 0.7 nm (low) are used throughout. This wavelength has been shown to have a longer linear range, though about half the sensitivity of the 193.7 nm line (2). Background2-3 correction is not used as it increases the system noise and has never been found necessary on the types of sample discussed in this paper.

Standards and Reagents
Arsenite (As(III)) Standards . A 1000 • mg l -1 stock solution is made up by the dissolution of 1.73 grams of reagent grade NaAsO 2 in 1.0-liter deionized water containing 0.1% ascorbic acid. This solution is kept refrigerated in an amber bottle. A 1.0 mg • l -1 working stock solution is made by dilution with 0.1% ascorbic acid solution and stored as above. Under these conditions this solution has been found stable for at least one year.
Further dilutions of As(III) for analysis, or of samples to be analyzed for As(III), are made in filtered Dungeness River water. It has been observed both here and elsewhere (Andreae 1983) that deionized water can have an oxidizing potential that causes a diminished As(III) response at low levels (1 μg l -1 and less). Dilute As(III) standards are prepared daily.
Arsenate (As(V)) Standards . To prepare a 1000 mg • l -1 stock solution, 4.16 g of reagent grade Na 2 HASO 4 • 7H 2 O are dissolved in 1.0 liter of deionized water. Working standards are prepared by serial dilution with deionized water and prepared monthly.
Monomethylarsonate (MMA) Standards . To prepare a stock solution of 1000 mg • l -l , 3.90 g of CH 3 AsO(ONa) 2 • 6H 2 O is dissolved in 1.0 liter of deionized water. Working standards are prepared by serial dilution with deionized water. Dilute standards are prepared weekly.
Dimethylarsinate (DMA) Standards . To prepare a stock solution of 1000mg 1-l, 2.86 g of reagent grade (CW3)2AsO2Na 3H2O (cacodylic acid, sodium salt) is dissolved in 1.0 liter deionized water. Dilute standards are handled as for MMA.
6M Hydrochloric Acid . Equal volumes of reagent grade concentrated HCl and deionized water are combined to give a solution approximately 6M in HCl.

Tris Buffer . 394 g of Tris HCl (tris (hydroxymethyl) aminomethane hydrochloride) and 2.5 g of reagent grade NaOH are dissolved in deionized water to make 1.0 liter. This solution is 2.5 M in tris and 2.475 M in HCl, giving a pH of about 6.2 when diluted 50-fold with deionized water.
Sodium Borohydride Solution . Four grams of >98% NaBH 4 (previously analyzed and found to be low in arsenic) are dissolved in 100 ml of 0.02 M NaOH solution. This solution is stable 8-10 hours when kept covered at room temperature. It is prepared daily.
Phosphoric Acid Leaching Solution . To prepare 1.0 liter of 0.10 M phosphoric acid solution, 6.8 ml of reagent grade 85% H 3 PO 4 are dissolved in deionized water.
Trisodium Phosphate Leaching Solution . To prepare 1.0 liter of 0.10 M trisodium phosphate solution, 6.8 ml of 85% H 3 PO 4 and 12 g of reagent grade NaOH are dissolved in deionized water.

Acid Digestion Mixture . With constant stirring, 200 ml of concentrated reagent grade H 2 SO 4 are slowly added to 800 ml concentrated HNO 3 .2-4 METHODS

Total Arsenic Determination
An aqueous sample (5-30 ml) is placed into the reaction vessel and 1.0 ml of 6M HCl is added. The 4-way valve is put in place and turned to begin purging the vessel. The G.C. trap is lowered into a Dewar flask containing liquid nitrogen (LN 2 ) and the flask topped off with LN 2 to a constant level. A 2.0-ml aliquot of NaBH 4 solution is then introduced thr ough the s ilicone rubber septum with a disposable 3-ml hypodermic syringe and the timer turned on. The NaBH 4 is slowly added over a period of about 1 minute, being careful that the H 2 liberated by the reduction of water does not overpressurize the system or foam the contents out of the reaction vessel.
After purging the vessel for 8 minutes, the stopcock is turned to pass helium directly to the G.C. trap. In rapid order, the LN 2 flask is removed, the trap heating coil is turned on, and the chart recorder is turned on. The arsines are eluted in the order: AsH 3 , CH 3 AsH 2 , (CH 3 ) 2 AsH according to their increasing boiling points given in Table 2.2 (1).

Arsenic (III) Determination
The same procedure as above is used to determine arsenite, except that the initial pH is buffered at about 5 to 7 rather than <1, so as to isolate the arsenous acid by its pKa (1). This is accomplished by the addition of 1.0 ml of Tris buffer to a 5- to 30-ml aliquot of unacidified sample. (If the sample is acidic or basic, it must be neutralized first, or the buffer will be exhausted.) For the As(III) procedure, 1.0 ml of NaBH 4 is added in a single short (~10 seconds) injection, as the rapid evolution of H 2 does not occur at this pH.
Small, irreproducible quantities of organic arsines may be released at this pH and should be ignored. The separation of arsenite, however, is quite reproducible and essentially 100% complete. As(V) is calculated by subtracting the As(III) determined in this step from the total inorganic arsenic determined on an aliquot of the same sample previously.

SEDIMENTS
Total Inorganic Arsenic
A 1.00-g aliquot of freeze-dried and homogenized sediment is placed into a 100-ml snap-cap volumetric flask. Five milliliters of deionized water is added to form a slurry and then 7 ml of the acid digestion mixture is added. After 5 minutes, the caps are replaced and the flasks heated at 80 to 90 ° C for 2 hours. Upon cooling the samples are diluted to the mark with deionized water, shaken, and allowed to settle overnight. An appropriate-sized aliquot of the supernatant liquid (25- 100 μl) is added to 20 ml of deionized water and run as for total arsenic.

Leachable Arsenite
An aliquot (~1-2 g) of fresh or freshly thawed wet homogeneous sediment is weighed to the nearest 10 mg directly into a 40-ml acid-cleaned Oak Ridge type centrifuge tube. To this is added 25 ml of 0.10 M H 3 PO 4 solution and the tubes are agitated with the lids on. Periodic agitation is maintained2-5 for 18 to 24 hours, at which time the tubes are centrifuged for 30 minutes at 2500 RPM. Twenty milliliter aliquots of the supernatant liquid are removed by pipetting into cleaned polyethylene vials and saved in the refrigerator until analysis. Analysis should be accomplished within the next couple days.
For analysis, an appropriate-sized aliquot (10-100 μ1) is added to 20 ml of well-characterized filtered river water (or other nonoxidizing/nonreducing water). Enough 1.0 M NaOH solution is added to approximately naturalize the H 3 PO 4 (1/3 the volume of the sample aliquot), and then 1.0 ml of Tris buffer is added. The sample is then analyzed as for As(III).

Leachable Arsenate, MMA and DMA
An aliquot (~1-2 g) of wet sediment is weighed into a centrifuge tube, as above. To this are added 25 ml of 0.1 M Na 3 PO 4 solution, and the tubes agitated periodically for 18 to 24 hours. After centrifugation the supernatant liquid (dark brown due to released humic materials) is analyzed as for total arsenic using an appropriate-sized aliquot in 20 ml of deionized water. The total inorganic arsenic in this case should be only As(V), as As(III) is observed to not be released at this pH. No pre-neutralization of the sample is necessary as the HCl added is well in excess of the sample alkalinity.

Interstitial Water Analysis
Interstitial water samples may be treated just as ordinary water, except that as they are quite high in arsenic, usually an aliquot of 100 to 1000 μl diluted in deionized water or river water is appropriate in most cases.

Storage Experiments
Storage experiments designed to preserve the original arsenic speciation of samples were carried out for a wide variety of conditions. For water samples, 30-ml and 60-ml polyethylene bottles precleaned in 1 M HCl were used.

Conditions of temperature ranging from 20 ° C to -196 ° C were assessed, as well as preservation with HCl and ascorbic acid. Storage tests were carried out over a period of one month for water samples.
The stability of the As(III)/As(V) ratio in interstitial water at room temperature, in the presence ot air was carried out over a 24-hour period to determine the feasibility of the field collection of interstitial water.
Because of the time-consuming nature of sediment analysis, a two-point storage test was carried out with triplicate samples analyzed for two sediments at two temperatures (0 ° C and -18 ° C). Mud samples were stored in polyethylene vials and analyzed at time zero and one month.2-6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data Output
Using the procedures outlined above, and a mixed standard containing As(V), MMA, and DMA, standard curves were prepared for each of the arsines generated. A typical chromatogram from this procedure is illustrated in Figure 2.2. Under the cor,ditions described in this paper, the elusion times for the various arsines are as follows: AsH 3 , 24 ± 2 s; CH 3 AsH 2 , 53 ± 2 s; and (CH 3 ) 2 AsH, 66 ± 2 s. Notice that the peaks are broadened and that the sensitivity decreases as the boiling point of the compound increases. The small amount of signal after the DMA peak is probably a higher boiling impurity in the DMA, or some DMA that is lagging in the system during elusion. We had previously noted much larger, multiple peaks in this region when water was allowed to condense between the trap and the detector. Such peaks were effectively eliminated and the DMA peak sharpened with the addition of the heating coil between the trap and the detector.
The typical standard curves in Figure 2.3 are prepared from the mean of two determinations at each concentration. Arsenic peak-height response appears to be linear to at least 600 mau (milliabsorbance units), which is the full scale setting used on our chart recorder. Andreae (3) shows that arsenic response is extremely nonlinear above this for the peak height mode, and recommends the use of peak area integration to increase the linear range. We have chosen to simply use a small enough sample aliquot to remain within 600 mau.
As arsenic response is quite sensitive to the H 2 /O 2 ratio in the flame, it is necessary to restandardize the instrument whenever it is set up. Usually, however, the response is quite constant and stable over the entire day.

Precision, Accuracy, and Detection Limits
Precision and accuracy are the greatest and the detection limits the lowest for inorganic arsenic. The precision and accuracy of the inorganic arsenic determination is illustrated at two concentrations in Table 2-3. The standard seawater, NASS-1 (National Research Council of Canada) was run in 5.0-ml aliquots and the "standard river water" (National Bureau of Standards) was run in 100-μl aliquots. In either case, both the precision (RSD) and accuracy were about 5%. Precision begins to decrease, as the boiling point of the compound increases, as is illustrated in Table 2-4, for spiked river water. No standard reference material has been found for the organic species.
The detection limit of this technique has not been explored to the extreme as the usual environmental sample benefits from less, not more sensitivity. For a chart recorder expansion of 600 mau full scale, and the parameters given in the text, and for a 30-ml sample aliquot, the following approximate detection limits are found: As(V), 0.006 μg • 1 -1 (twice the standard deviation of the blank); As(III) 0.003 μg • 1 -1 (0.5 chart units); MMA, 0.010 μg • 1 -1 as As (0.5 chart units); DMA, 0.012 μg • 1 -1 as As (0.5 chart units). For As(III), MMA and DMA, no contribution to the blank has been found due to reagents, except for the As(III) present in the river water used as a dilutant. As for As(V) a small contribution is found, mostly from the NaBH 4 , and to a smaller extent from H 3 PO 4 . These may be minimized by selecting reagent lots of reagents found to be low in arsenic.2-7 Water Storage Experiments
From the many experiments undertaken to determine a storage regime for arsenic species, the following general conclusion can be made: Almost any storage scheme will preserve the total arsenic, MMA, and DMh concentrations of river water in the μ • 1 -1 range. This is illustrated in the Figures 2-4a-p, where the final concentration of these parameters was within ±20% of the initial in all cases. The noise in the data is due mostly to the day-to-day analytical variability, which has been observed to be about twice that of same-day replicate analysis. On the other hand, these data also show that it is very difficult to preserve the original As(III)/As(V) ratio in samples, even for a short time. Two major observations are made: first, river water (0ungeness River water) tends to spontaneously reduce As(V) to As(III), even though the water has been filtered to 0.4 ~, thus removing most living creatures. This is also curious, as the natural equilibrium As(III)/As(V) ratio is about 0.2 in Dungeness River water. It is surmised that dissolved organic materials in the water are responsible for its reducing properties, a conclusion that is supported by work involving the reduction of Hg(II) to Hg(0) by humic acids (Bloom, unpublished work). The second observation is that the freezing of water inexplicably, but reproducibly causes the oxidation of As(III) to As(V) (Figure 2-4-g, i), except in the case of very rapid freezing by immersion in LN 2 (Figure 2-4-m, o).
In light of these observations, the following storage regimes are recommended for arsenic in aqueous solution:
1. If only total inorganic arsenic plus MMA and DMA are to be determined, the sample should be stored at 0 to 4 ° C in polyethylene bottles until analysis. No chemical preservative is needed or desired and the analysis should be carried out as soon as possible.
2. If the As(III)/As(V) ratio is to be maintained, the sample must be quick-frozen to -196 ° C in liquid nitrogen, and then stored at at least -80 ° C until analysis. Note that Figure 4-k shows that even in the case of rapid freezing to -196 ° C, followed by storage at -18 ° C, a definite oxidation of As(III) to As(V) was observed.
A convenient and safe way to quick-freeze samples is to place 55 ml of sample into a 60-ml narrow-mouth polyethylene bottle, screw on the cap (which has a 2 mm diameter hole) tightly, and drop into a Dewar flask full of liquid nitrogen. These bottles have been shown not to crack if less than 58 ml of water is placed in them, and not to float in the LN 2 if more than 50 ml is placed in them. After returning to the laboratory, the bottles may be placed into a low temperature freezer until analysis. Note of caution, if a small hole is not placed in the lid of the bottles, which are frozen in liquid nitrogen, the bottles may explode when removed from the liquid nitrogen.

Determination of Arsenic Species in Sediments
Two procedures were investigated in the determination of arsenic in sediments. One, a wet-acid digestion was used to determine total arsenic. The second was a mild, pH-selective leach to remove various arsenic species intact.

Total Arsenic . In applying the hot HNO 3 /H 2 SO 4 digestion to standard sediments and air particulate matter, good agreement was attained between the established values and the measured values (Table 2-5). Also, in the case of estuarine and riverine sediments collected in the Puget Sound area, there was good agreement between X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy and tfiis method (Table 2-6). In either case, all observed arsenic was in the inorganic form.2-8 However, when Lake Washington sediment spiked with inorganic as well as organic forms was analyzed by this method, the following was observed:

1. All of the MMA was recovered as MMA.
2. All of the inorganic arsenic was recovered as inorganic arsenic.
3. None of the DMA was recovered, but an unidentified higher boiling peak was generated.
This peak is clearly illustrated in Figure 2-5. Even after the above samples were redigested to neardryness (white fumes) in HNO 3 plus HClO 4 , the same results were obtained. Therefore, at this point we recommend no hydride generation method to determine total arsenic in sediments, though this may be achieved using either neutron activation analysis or X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy. On the other hand, since no organic forms have been detected in any natural sediment and since both MMA and DMA give observable peaks if they are present, it is safe to assume as a general guideline that if only an inorganic arsenic peak is generated by a given sample, then it probably represents close to the total arsenic content of the sample.
Arsenic Speciation of Sediments . Maher (4) has shown that various arsenic species that may be removed from solids at different pH values. This approach was tested on a sample of spiked Lake Washington mud, over a wide range of pH using phosphate buffers. The results of these experiments, shown as arsenic recovered versus pH for all four species, are illustrated in Figure 2-6. Notice that the maximum recovery of As(III) occurs at about pH = 2.8 and that the maximum for As(V), MMA and DMA occur at pH >12. From these data, the two convenient buffers of 0.1 M H 3 PO 4 (pH = 1.5) and Na 3 PO 4 (pH = 12) were chosen to selectively extract the arsenic species from sediments. Samples extracted with H 3 PO 4 . (final pH = 2.3) are analyzed only for As(III) whereas those extracted with Na 3 PO 4 (final pH = 11.9) are analyzed only for total As, which gives As(V), MMA and DMA, as As(III) is not extracted at this pH. On untested sediment types it would be wise to test this relationship to be sure it holds true before instituting an analytical regime.
Recovery of arsenic species from spiked Lake Washington mud is illustrated in Table 2-7. The calculated spike was added to the mud, which was then aged 14 days at 4 ° C before analysis. All analysis were carried out in quintuplicate. The yields are good and within the day-to-day variability for the respective species.
The values of the above analysis were then taken as the time zero values, and the mud divided and stored in one of two ways. Three aliquots each of Lake Washington mud (LWM) and spiked LWM were placed into polyethylene bottles and frozen at -18 ° C, while three aliquots were kept refrigerated at 0 to 4 ° C. After 30 days these samples were analyzed for arsenic species, the results of which are shown in Table 2-8. These data indicate that small changes in the concentrations of the various species may be occurring, with significant decreases (20-30%) in the organic species being seen. These changes are small enough, however, that if the samples were analyzed as soon as possible after collection, they should not be of great importance.

Interstitial Water . Interstitial water is collected from mud by pressure filtration under nitrogen. An aliquot (~100 g) of mud is placed into a plastic pressure filtration vessel with 1.0 μ acid-cleaned filter, and tapped down to remove air bubbles. The system is pressurized to 75 psi, and after discarding the first 1 to 2 ml of filtrate, the interstitial water is collected into a 30-ml polyethylene bottle under nitrogen. The As(III) stability curve in Figure 2-7 was generated on a sample in contact with air. Within 5 minutes, the sample had changed from colorless to brown, indicating that Fe(II)2-9 had oxidized to Fe(III), and precipitated as colloidal Fe(OH) 3 . If an aliquot of sediment is filtered under nitrogen and then frozen at -196 ° C, as for water samples, within 5 to 10 minutes, minimal changes in the As(III)/As(V) ratio should have taken place.
Using the above technique, a sample of spiked, Lake Washington sediment was analyzed for interstitial water arsenic speciation 30 days after spiking with arsenic. This data is presented in Table 2-9 and shows that the distribution coefficients (K d ) of the various species between the solid and aqueous phases increase in the following order: DMA<<MMA<As(III)<<As(V). In fact, a sizable fraction (4.3%) of the DMA is in the interstitial water in a given sample, a fact which is important considering the intimate interaction of the interstitial water and living creatures.

Interlaboratory Comparison
An interlaboratory comparison exercise was conducted betw een Battelle-Northwest (BNW) and Dr. M.O. Andreae of Florida State University (FSU) to demonstrate the effectiveness of the sample storage and shipping procedure and verify the accuracy of the anlaytical technique for determination of arsenic species in fresh water. Three samples were prepared as follows: (1) Dungeness River water (DRW) was filtered, (2) filtered DRW was spiked with nominally 0.45 μg L -1 of As (V) and 2 μg L -1 each of DMA and MMA, and (3) coal fly ash, standard reference material NBS-1633, was leached with DRW then filtered. All solutions were frozen immediately after preparation in liquid nitrogen then transferred and stored at -80 ° C. Samples were shipped on dry ice. Samples were analyzed at BNW and FSU the same week approximately two months after preparation. The results in Table 2-10 show good agreement between these two laboratories even for concentrations below 0.1 μg L -1 . We believe this interlaboratory exercise has demonstrated that these storage and shipping procedures are appropriate for freshwater samples and the analytical method used for arsenic speciation is sensitive and accurate for concentrations of inorganic arsenic greater than approximately 0.05 and for organic arsenic concentrations greater than 0.2 μg L -1

.

Precision for Sediments and Water
The precision or reproducibility for replicate analyses of arsenic species in field samples is shown in Table 2-11. Collection of these field samples is described in Section 3 of this report. The sediment was analyzed for leachable As (III) and As (V). Interstitial water and water from Hyco Reservoir were also analyzed for As (III) and (V). The results indicate that the relative standard deviations (RSD) for arsenic (III) and (V) in sediment are approximately 20% while the RSD for these species in interstitial water and in the water column are approximately 15% and 7%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
Arsenic speciation of a variety of materials in the limnological environment is simply and reproducibly achieved using selective hydride generation/low-temperature trapping techniques in conjunction with atomic absorption detection. The most difficult problem is the unambiguous determination of total arsenic in solids by this technique. Other related techniques that might be investigated include dry ashing, lithium metaborate fusion, and graphite furnace atomic absorption. An alternate method is to analyze select samples by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry.2-10 Figure 2-1. Arsenic Speciation Apparatus: (a) Schematic Diagram, (b) Reaction Vessel, (c) Quartz Cuvette Burner Tube.2-11 Figure 2-2. Typical chromatogram of arsenic hydride species. Vertical axis absorbance, horizontal axis time.2-12 Figure 2-3. Standard curves, absorbance versus concentration for arsenic hydride species, atomic absorption detector.2-13 Figure 2-4a-p. Results of aqueous arsenic species storage tests. Plotted are the percentages of soluble arsenic species remaining versus storage time.2-14 Figure 2-4a-p. (continued)2-15 Figure 2-5. Chromatogram of digested (HNO 3 /H 2 SO 4 ) spiked Lake Washington mud. Vertical axis absorbance, horizontal axis time. Note absence of DMA peak and presence of unidentified higher boiling compound.2-16 Figure 2-6. Arsenic species released from sediments as a function of solution pH. Plot of arsenic in sediment leached, μg g -1 dry weight basis (DWB), versus pH of leachate.2-17 Figure 2-7. Plot of the concentration of As(III) and total inorganic arsenic versus storage time in interstitial water.2-18 Table 2-1
Optimal Flows and Pressures for Gases in the Hydride Generation System

Gas Flow rate ml • min -1 Pressure lb • in -2
He 150 10
H 2 350 20
Air 180 20

Table 2-2
Reduction Products and Their Boiling Points of Various Aqueous Arsenic Species

Aqueous form Reduction product B.P., ° C As(III), arsenous acid, HAsO 2 AsH 3 -55 As(V), arsenic acid, H 3 AsO 4 AsH 3 -55 MMA, CH 3 AsO(OH) 2 CH 3 AsH 2 2 DMA, (CH 3 )2AsO(OH) (CH 3 ) 2 AsH 35.62-19 Table 2-3
Replicate Determinations of Total Inorganic Arsenic in Some Standard Waters

Replicate Total (inorganic) arsenic, μg • 1 -1
NASS-1 Seawater NBS River water 1 1.579 81.5 2 1.556 74.5 3 1.591 71.8 4 1.493 79.0 5 1.529 79.3 N5 5 1.550 77.2 X S 0.040 4.0 RSD 2.6% 5.Z% Certified 1.65 76.0 ± 0.19 7.0 M = number of replicates. = mean X S = + one standard deviation RSD = relative standard deviation

Table 2-4
Precision Data for Three Arsenic Species, Illustrating

The Decrease in Precision with Increasing Boiling Point of Species. These Samples Were Spiked River Water Used in Water Storage Tests

Replicate Arsenic concentrations, ng • 1 -1 Inorganic

arsenic MMA DMA N (8-24-83) 3 3 3 937 2483 2173 X S 44 79 181 RSD 4.7% 3.2% 8.3% N (9-11-83) 3 4 4 800 2342 2393 X S 24 165 260 RSD 3.0% 7.0% 10.9%2-20 Table 2-5
Total Inorganic Arsenic in Standard Sediments by HNO 3 /H 2 SO 4

Replicate Total (inorganic) arsenic μg • g -1 dry weight basis

MESS-1 Estuarine sediment BCSS-1 Estuarine sediment NBS-1646 Estuarine sediment NBS-1648 Air particulate

matter 1 8.9 10.9 9.8 123.0 2 8.8 8.5 10.0 136.0 3 8.8 9.4 9.8 115.0 4 9.6 9.8 8.5 - 5 10.1 10.7 11.0 -

N5 5 5 3 X 9.2 9.9 9.8 125.0 S 0.6 1.0 0.9 11.0 RSD 6.5% 10.1% 9.2% 8.8% Certified 10.6 11.1 11.6 115.0

+ 1.2 1.4 1.3 10.02-21 Table 2-6
Comparison of X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy and Hydride Generation Aa in the Determination of Total Arsenic Enyironmental Sediments. All Represent Total Inorganic Arsenic by Hot Acid Digestion Except (*) Slwm, Which Is the Sum of Species by Leaching

Types of Sediment Total arsenic, μg • g -1 dry weight basis
XRF Hydride AA Lake Washington (silt) 14.6 + 0.1 n=3 14.5 + 1.1 n=6 Spiked Lake Washington (silt) 124.1 + 3.4 n=3 120.0 + 7.5 n=5* BCSS-1, clean estuarine (mud) 11.7 + 0.7 n=3 9.9 + 1.0 n=5 Contaminated Puget Sound (sandy) 108.0 + 24.0 n=3 93.0 + 21.0 n=3 Duwamish River (sand) 8.0 n=1 2.6 n=1

Table 2-7
Recovery of Arsenic Species from Spiked Lake Washington Mud by Selective Leaching

Arsenic species μg • g -1 Arsenic, dry weight basis
Lake Washington mud Spike added Total recovered Percent recovery As(III) 2.2 + 0.3 5.8 8.2 + 14 103% As(V) 4.4 + 0.3 9.5 13.5 + 17 96%
MMA <0.8 58.0 51.3 + 6.0 88%
DMA <0.8 54.0 47.0 + 4.2 87%2-22 Table 2-8
Thirty-day Storage Results for Arsenic Speciation in Sediments
Lake Washington mud

Arsenic species μg • g -1 Arsenic, dry weight basis

Initial concentration Concentrations after 30-day aging Refrigerated, 0-4  C Frozen, -18  C As(III) 2.2 + 0.3 2.2 + 0.4 2.3 + 0.3 As(V) 4.4 + 0.3 5.2 + 0.4 5.4 + 0.4
MMA <0.8 <0.8 <0.8
DMA <0.8 <0.8 <0.8
Spiked Lake Washington mud

Arsenic species μg • g -1 Arsenic, dry weight basis

Initial concentration Concentrations after 30-day aging Refrigerated, 0-4  C Frozen, -18  C As(III) 8.2 + 1.4 7.1 + 2.7 9.9 + 1.3 As(V) 13.5 + 1.7 13.8 + 1.0 16.0 + 0.5
MMA 51.3 + 6.0 39.9 + 1.6 46.2 + 3.5
DMA 47.0 + 4.2 46.5 + 3.2 40.0 + 2.4

Table 2-9
Arsenic Speciation of Spiked Lake Washington Mud Interstitial Water K d Values Represent [As (Dry Weight Sediment]/[As (Insterstitial Water)]

Species Arsenic concentration μg • g -1 Dry sediment Interstitial water K d As(V) 20 <0.002 >10,000 As(III) 5.2 0.014 371 MMA 40 0.11 364 DMA 38 1.72 232-23 Table 2-10
Arsenic Speciation Intercomparison Exercise

Sample μg -1 AS (III) As (V) MMA DMW
BNW Andreae BNW Andreae BNW Andreae BNW Andreae
DRW 0.061
+ 0.004 0.067 0.042
+ 0.008 0.023 <0.01 0.002 <0.01 0.067

SDRW 0.061
+ 0.005 0.066 0.468
+ 0.028 0.421 1.96
+ 0.11 1.67 1.92
+ 0.13 1.82

FA 0.052
+ 0.006 0.031 12.9
+ 0.2 12.0 <0.01 ND <0.01 ND

Intercomparison exercise results with Meinrat 0. Andreae for arsenic speciation in limnological samples. DRW is filtered Dungeness River water; SDRW is Dungeness River water spiked with nominally 0.45 μg • -1 As (V), and 2 μg

• -1 each DMA and MMA. FA is the filtrate of 1000 mg Q-1 NBS coal fly ash leached with DRW. BNW results are the mean of (3) determinations. ND means not detected. ± = one standard deviation.2-24Table 2-11Precision of Arsenic Speciation HYCO Reservoir(February 1984)ReplicateSediment As, Sta. 5μg g-1dry wtInterstitial As, Sta. 5μg L-1Water column, Sta. 4μg L-1Total AS (V) AS III) Total As (V) AS (III) Total As (V) As (III)1 38.33 25.15 13.18 75.8 41.1 34.7 1.222 1.128 0.0942 36.61 21.74 14.87 67.1 29.9 37.2 1.082 0.983 0.0993 25.27 15.24 10.03 77.2 32.0 45.2 1.186 1.079 0.1074 21.28 12.75 8.53 ------ ------5 29.49 17.26 12.23 ------ ------6 28.71 16.97 11.74 ------ ------N 6 6 6 3 3 33 3 3

X29.95 18.19 11.76 73.4 34.4 39.0 1.163 1.063 0.100S 6.53 4.51 2.26 5.5 6.0 5.5 0.073 0.074 0.007RSD 21.8% 24.8% 19.2% 7.5% 17.4% 14.1% 6.3% 6.9% 6.6%2-25 REFERENCES
1. Braman, R. S., L. L. Johnson, C. C. Foreback, J. M. Ammons and J. L. Bricker. “ Separation and determination of nanogram amounts of inorganic arsenic and methylarsenic compounds. ” Analytical Chemistry 49 (4):621-625 (1977).
2 Andreae, M. O. “ Determination of arsenic species in natural waters. ” Analytical Chemistry 49:820, May 1977.
3. Andreae, M. O. “ Methods of Seawater Analysis. ” Arsenic (by hydride generation/AAS), pp. 168- 173 Verlag Chemie, Florida, (1983).
4. Maher, W. A. “ Determination of inorganic and methylated arsenic species in marine organisms and sediments. ” Analytica Chemica Acta 126:157-165 (1981).

# APPENDIX I

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL GUIDANCEAPPENDIX I

I-3 

## APPENDIX I
QUALITY ASSURANCE(QA) AND QUALITY CONTROL (QC) GUIDANCE

I.1 GENERAL QA AND QC CONSIDERATIONS
The primary objective of the specific QA and QC guidance provided in this document is to ensure that
• Appropriate data quality objectives or requirements are established prior to sample collection and analysis.
• Samples are collected, processed, and analyzed according to scientifically valid, cost-effective, standardized procedures.
• The integrity and security of samples and data are maintained at all times.
• Recordkeeping and documentation procedures are adequate to ensure the traceability of all samples and data from initial sample collection through final reporting and archiving and to ensure the verifiability and defensibility of reported results.
• Data quality is assessed, documented, and reported properly.
• Reported results are complete, accurate, and comparable with those from other similar monitoring programs.

I.2 QA PLAN REQUIREMENTS
To ensure the quality, defensibility, and comparability of the data used to determine exposure assessments and fish consumption advisories, it is essential that an effective QA program be developed as part of the overall design for each monitoring program. The specific QA activities should be documented in a written QA Project Plan (QAPP) or in a combined Work/QA Plan and should be implemented strictly throughout all phases of the monitoring program.
The QAPP should follow the guidelines and requirements specified in EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/G-5) and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data (EPAAPPENDIX I

I-4 QA/R-5), where applicable. To obtain the type and quality of environmental data needed for decision making or a specified end use, the QAPP needs to provide a project-specific strategy for applying QA and quality control (QC) procedures.
The QAPP should be composed of standardized, recognizable elements that cover the entire project. These elements should be organized under four general categories that correspond to the planning, implementation, assessment, and validation phases of the project. Although project-specific tailoring of the EPA guidance for developing QA plans is encouraged, all required information must be included either in full or by reference to appropriate st andard operating procedures (SOPs). The following summarizes the pertinent elements of a QAPP for each phase of the project.
1. Project Management
a. A historical and scientific perspective of the project including a description of the problem to be solved or the decision to be made
b. A clear statement of the project goals and the approach to be used and an overview of the work to be performed and the schedule of implementation
c. A description of the program organization and personnel roles and responsibilities, including responsibility for ensuring adherence to the QA plan
d. Specification of data quality objectives in terms of accuracy, precision, representativeness, and completeness, for data generated from each type of measurement system
e. Identification of special training for project personnel
f. A description of the procedure for obtaining approval for substantive changes in the monitoring program
g. Detailed description of health and safety procedures

2. Measurement and Data Acquisition
a. Detailed descriptions of field sample collection and handling procedures, including documentation of

• Target species and size (age) class

• Sampling site locations

• Target contaminants

• Sampling times/schedulesAPPENDIX I

I-5 • Numbers of samples and sample replication strategy

• Sample collection procedures

• Sample processing procedures, including sample identification, labeling, preservation, and storage conditions

• Sample shipping procedures
b. A detailed description of chain-of-custody procedures, including specification of standard chain-of-custody forms and clear assignment of field and laboratory personnel responsibilities for sample custody
c. Detailed descriptions of laboratory procedures for sample receipt, storage, and preparation, including specification of the kinds of samples to be prepared for analyses (e.g., composite vs. individual, whole body vs. fillet, replicates)
d. Detailed descriptions of the analytical methods used for quantitation of target contaminants and percent lipid determination
e. Detailed descriptions of methods routinely used to assess data accuracy, precision, and completeness, including

• Internal QC checks using field, reagent, or method blanks; spiked samples; split samples; QC samples prepared from standard reference materials; and replicate analyses

• Calibration checks

• Data quality assessments
f. Detailed descriptions of preventive maintenance procedures for sampling and analysis equipment
g. Detailed descriptions of calibration procedures for all measurement instruments, including specification of reference materials used for calibration standards and calibration schedules
h. Detailed descriptions of recordkeeping and documentation procedures, including requirements for

• Maintaining field and laboratory logs and notebooks

• Use of standard data collection and reporting forms

• Making changes to original records

• Number of significant figures to be recorded for each type of data

• Units of reporting

• Routine procedures to assess the accuracy and completeness of recordsAPPENDIX I

I-6 3. Assessment and Oversight
a. Detailed descriptions of data management and reporting proc edures, including requirements for

• Technical reports

• QA and QC reports

• Data coding procedures

• Database specifications

• QA review of reported data

• Data storage and archiving procedures
b. Detailed descriptions of procedures for internal QC performance and/or systems audits for sampling and analysis programs
c. Detailed descriptions of procedures for external QA performance and/or systems audits for sampling and analysis programs, including participation in certified QA proficiency testing or interlaboratory comparison programs
d. Detailed descriptions of corrective action procedures in both sampling and analysis programs, including

• Criteria and responsibility for determining the need for corrective action

• Procedures for ensuring that effective corrective action has been taken

• Procedures for documenting and reporting corrective actions
4. Data Validation and Usability
a. Provide the criteria to be used in reviewing and validating the data and for deciding the degree to which each data item has met its quality specification
b. Describe the process to be used for validating and verifying data, including the chain of custody for data throughout the project
c. Include detailed descriptions of data analysis procedures, including

• Statistical treatment of data

• Data summary formats (e.g., plots, tables)
d. Precisely define and interpret how validation issues differ from verification issuesAPPENDIX I

I-7 Guidance for addressing each of the QA or QC elements outlined above, including a list of recommended standard reference materials and external QA or interlaboratory comparison programs for the analyses of target analytes, is incorporated in the appropriate sections of this guidance document. The EPA guidance and requirements documents (EPA QA/G-5 and EPA QA.R-5) should be referenced for more detailed discussions of the elements to be included in the QA plan (available at http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa/qaqa_docs.html ).

# APPENDIX J

RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING WHOLE FISH COMPOSITE HOMOGENATE SAMPLESAPPENDIX J

J-3 

## APPENDIX J

RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING WHOLE FISH COMPOSITE HOMOGENATE SAMPLES

J.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES
Laboratory processing to prepare whole fish composite samples (diagrammed in Figure J-1) involves
• Inspecting individual fish for foreign material on the surface and rinsing if necessary • Weighing individual fish • Examining each fish for morphological abnormalities (optional) • Removing scales or otoliths for age determination (optional) • Determining the sex of each fish (optional) • Preparing individual whole fish homogenates • Preparing a composite whole fish homogenate.
Whole fish should be shipped on wet or blue ice from the field to the sample processing laboratory if next-day delivery is assured. Fish samples arriving in this manner (chilled but not frozen) should be wei ghed, scales and/or otoliths removed, and the sex of each fish determined within 48 hours of sample collection. The grinding/homogenization proc edure may be carried out more easily and efficiently if the sample has been frozen previously (Stober, 1991). Therefore, the samples should then be frozen (  -20 C) in the laboratory prior to being homogenized.
If the fish samples arrive frozen (i.e., on dry ice) at the sample processing laboratory, precautions should be taken during weighing, removal of scales and/or otoliths, and sex determination to ensure that any liquid formed in thawing remains with the sample. Note: The liquid will contain target analyte contaminants and lipid material that should be included in the sample for analysis.
The thawed or partially thawed whole fish should then be homogenized individually, and equal weights of each homogenate should be combined to form the composite sample. Individual homogenates and/or composite homogenates may be frozen; however, frozen individual homogenates must be rehomogenized before compositing, and frozen composite homogenates must be rehomogenized before aliquotting for analysis. The maximum holding time from sample collection to analysis for mercury is 28 days at  -20 C; for all other analytes, the holding time is 1 year at  -20 C (Stober, 1991). Recommended container materials,APPENDIX J

J-4 Composite equal weights (g) of homogenized fillet tissues from the

selected number of fish (200-g)

Seal and label (200-g) composite homogenate in appropriate container(s) and store at ≤ -20 ° C until analysis (see Table 7-1 for recommended container materials and holding times). Log in fish samples using COC procedures

Unwrap and inspect individual fish

Weigh individual fish

Remove and archive scales and/or otoliths for age determination (optional)

Determine sex (optional); note morphological abnormalities (optional)

Save remainder of fillet homogenate from each fish

Seal and label individual fillet homogenates in appropriate container(s) and archive at ≤ -20 ° C (see Table 7-1 for recommended container materials and holding times). Remove scales from all scaled fish Remove skin from scaleless fish (e.g., catfish)

COC = Chain of custody. Fillet fish

Weigh fillets (g)

Homogenize fillets

Divide homogenized sample into quarters, mix opposite quarters, and then mix halves (3 times)

Optional

Figure J-1. Laboratory sample preparation and handling for whole fish composite homogenate samples.APPENDIX J

J-5 preservation temperatures, and holding times are given in Table J-1. Note: Holding times in Table J-1 are maximum times recommended for holding samples from the time they are received at the laboratory until they are analyzed. These holding times are based on guidance that is sometimes administrative rather than technical in nature; there are no promulgated holding time criteria for tissues (U.S. EPA, 1995b). If states choose to use longer holding times, they must demonstrate and document the stability of the target analyte residues over the extended holding times.

J.2 SAMPLE PROCESSING PROCEDURES
Fish sample processing procedures are discussed in more detail in the sections below. Each time custody of a sample or set of samples is transferred from oneperson to another during processing, the Personal Custody Record of the chainof-custody (COC) form that originated in the field (Figure 6-8) must be completed and signed by both parties so that possession and location of the samples can be traced at all times (see Section 7.1). As each sample processing procedure is performed, it should be documented directly in a bound laboratory notebook or on standard forms that can be taped or pasted into the notebook. The use of a standard form is recommended to ensure consistency and completeness of the record. Several existing programs have developed forms similar to the sample processing record for whole fish composite samples shown in Figure J-2.
J.2.1 Sample Inspection
Individual fish received for filleting should be unwrapped and inspected carefully to ensure that they have not been compromised in any way (i.e., not properly preserved during shipment). Any specimen deemed unsuitable for further processing and analysis should be discarded and identified on the sample processing record.
J.2.2 Sample Weighing
A wet weight should be determined for each fish. All samples should be weighed on balances that are properly calibrated and of adequate accuracy and precision to meet program data quality objectives. Balance calibration should be checked at the beginning and end of each weighing session and after every 20 weighings in a weighing session.
Fish shipped on wet or blue ice should be weighed directly on a foil-lined balance tray. To prevent cross contamination between individual fish, the foil lining should be replaced after each weighing. Frozen fish (i.e., those shipped on dry ice) should be weighed in clean, tared, noncontaminating containers if they will thaw before the weighing can be completed. Liquid from the thawed sample must beAPPENDIX J

J-6 Table J-1. Recommendations for Container Materials, Preservation, and Holding Times for Fish, Shellfish, and Turtle Tissues from Receipt at Sample Processing Laboratory to Analysis

Analyte Matrix Sample container Storage Preservation Holding time a Mercury Tissue (whole specimens, homogenates) Plastic, borosilicate glass, quartz,

and PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 28 days b

Other metals Tissue (whole specimens, homogenates) Plastic, borosilicate glass, quartz,

and PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 6 months c

Organics Tissue (whole specimens, homogenates) Borosilicate glass, quartz,

PTFE, and aluminum foil Freeze at < -20 C 1 year d

Metals and

organics Tissue (whole specimens, homogenates) Borosilicate glass, quartz,

and PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 28 days (mercury); 6 months (for other metals); and 1 year (for

organics) Lipids Tissue (whole specimens, homogenates) Plastic, borosilicate glass, quartz, PTFE Freeze at < -20 C 1 year

PTFE = Polytetrafluoroethylene for Teflon.

a Maximum holding times recommended by U.S. EPA (1995b).
b This maximum holding time is also recommended by the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990). The

California Department of Fish and Game (1990) and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (Crawford and Luoma, 1993) recommend a maximum holding time of 6 months for all metals, including mercury.

c This maximum holding time is also recommended by the California Department of Fish and Game (1990),

the 301(h) monitoring program (U.S. EPA, 1986), and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (Crawford and Luoma, 1993). The Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990) recommends a maximum holding time of 2 years.
d This maximum holding time is also recommended by the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990). The

California Department of Fish and Game (1990) and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (Crawford and Luoma, 1993) recommend a more conservative maximum holding time of 6 months. EPA (1995a) recommends a maximum holding time of 1 year at  -10 C for dioxins and dibenzofurans.APPENDIX J

J-7 Figure J-2. Example of a sample processing record for fish contaminant monitoring program—whole fish composites.APPENDIX J

J-8 kept in the container as part of the sample because it will contain lipid material that has separated from the tissue (Stober, 1991).
All weights should be recorded to the nearest gram on the sample processing record and/or in the laboratory notebook.
J.2.3 Age Determination
Age provides a good indication of the duration of exposure to pollutants (Versar, 1982). A few scales or otoliths (Jearld, 1983) should be removed from each fish and delivered to a fisheries biologist for age determination. For most warm water inland gamefish, 5 to 10 scales should be removed from below the lateral line and behind the pectoral fin. On softrayed fish such as trout and salmon, the scales should be taken just above the lateral line (WDNR, 1988). For catfish and other scaleless fish, the pectoral fin spines should be clipped and saved (Versar, 1982). The scales, spines, or otoliths may be stored by sealing them in small envelopes (such as coin envelopes) or plastic bags labeled with, and cross-referenced by, the identification number assigned to the tissue specimen (Versar, 1982). Removal of scales, spines, or otoliths from each fish should be noted (by a check mark) on the sample processing record.
J.2.4 Sex Determination (Optional)
To determine the sex of a fish, an incision should be made on the ventral surface of the body from a point immediately anterior to the anus toward the head to a point immediately posterior to the pelvic fins. If necessary, a second incision should be made on the left side of the fish from the initial point of the first incision toward the dorsal fin. The resulting flap should be folded back to observe the gonads. Ovaries appear whitish to greenish to golden brown and have a granular texture. Testes appear creamy white and have a smooth texture (Texas Water Commission, 1990). The sex of each fish s hould be recorded on the sample processing record.
J.2.5 Assessment of Morphological Abnormalities (Optional)
Assessment of gross morphological abnormalities in finfish is optional. This assessment may be conducted in the field (see Section 6.3.1.5) or during initial inspection at the central processing laboratory prior to filleting. States interested in documenting morphological abnormalities s hould consult Sinderman (1983) and review recommended protocols for fish pathology studies used in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (1990).
J.2.6 Preparation of Individual Homogenates
To ensure even distribution of contaminants throughout tissue samples, whole fish must be ground and homogenized prior to analyses.APPENDIX J

J-9 Smaller whole fish may be ground in a hand crank meat grinder (fish < 300 g) or a food processor (fish 300-1,000 g). Larger (>1, 000 g) fish may be cut into 2.5-cm cubes with a food service band saw and then ground in either a small orlarge homogenizer. To avoid contamination by metals, grinders and homogenizers used to grind and blend tissue should have tantalum or titanium blades and/or probes. Stainless steel blades and probes have been found to be a potential source of nickel and chromium contamination (due to abrasion at high speeds) and should be avoided.
Grinding and homogenization of biological tissue, especially skin from whole fish samples, is easier when the tissue is partially frozen (Stober, 1991). Chilling the grinder/homogenizer briefly with a few chips of dry ice will reduce the tendency of the tissue to stick to the grinder.
The ground sample should be divided into quarters, opposite quarters mixed together by hand, and the two halves mixed back together. The grinding, quartering, and hand mixing should be repeated two more times. If chunks of tissue are present at this point, the grinding/homogenizing should be repeated. No chunks of tissue should remain because these may not be extracted or digested efficiently. If the sample is to be analyzed for metals only, the groundtissue may be mixed by hand in a polyethylene bag (Stober, 1991). Homogenization of each individual fish should be noted on the sample processing record. At this time, individual whole fish homogenates may be either composited or frozen and stored at  -20 C in cleaned containers that are noncontaminating for the analyses to be performed (see Table J-1).
J.2.7 Preparation of Composite Homogenates
Composite homogenates should be prepared from equal weights of individual homogenates. If individual whole fish homogenates have been frozen, they should be thawed partially and rehomogenized prior to compositing. Any associated liquid should be maintained as a part of the sample. The weight of each individual homogenate that is used in the composite homogenate should be recorded, to the nearest gram, on the sample processing record.
Each composite homogenate should be blended by dividing it into quarters, mixing opposite quarters together by hand, and mixing the two halves together. The quartering and mixing should be repeated at least two more times. If the sample is to be analyzed only for metals, the composite homogenate may be mixed by hand in a polyethylene bag (Stober, 1991). At this time, the composite homogenate may be processed for analysis or frozen and stored at  -20 C (see Table J-1).
The remainder of each individual homogenate should be archived at  -20 C with the designation "Archive" and the expiration date recorded on the sample label. The location of the archived samples should be indicated on the sample processing record under "Notes."APPENDIX J

J-10 It is essential that the weights of individual homogenates yield a composite homogenate of adequate size to perform all necessary analyses. Weights of individual homogenates required for a composite homogenate, based on the number of fish per composite and the weight of composite homog enate recommended for analyses of all screening study target analytes (see Table 4-1), are given in Table J-2. The total composite weight required for intensive studies may be less than in screening studies if the number of target analytes is reduced significantly.
The recommended sample size of 200 g for screening studies is intended to provide sufficient sample material to (1) analyze for all recomm ended target analytes (see Table 4-1) at appropriate detection limits, (2) meet minimum QA and QC requirements for the analyses of replicate, matrix spike, and duplicate matrix spike samples (see Section 8.3.3.4), and (3) allow for reanalysis if the QA and QC control limits are not met or if the sample is lost. However, sample size requirements may vary among laboratories and the analytical methods used. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each program manager to consult with the analytical laboratory supervisor to determine the actual weights of composite homogenates required to analyze for all selected target analytes at appropriate detection limits.

J.3 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan . Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, CA.
Crawford, J.K., and S.N. Luoma. 1993. Guidelines for Studies of Contaminants in Biological Tissues for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program

. USGS Open-File Report 92-494. U.S. Geological Survey, Lemoyne, PA.
Jearld, A. 1983. Age determination. pp. 301-324. In: Fisheries Techniques

. L.A. Nielsen and D. Johnson (eds.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Puget Sound Estuary Program. 1990 (revised). Recommended protocols for fish pathology studies in Puget Sound. Prepared by PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA. In: Recommended Protocols and Guidelines for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables in Puget S ound. Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA. (Looseleaf)
Sinderman, C. J. 1983. An examination of some relationships between pollution and disease. Rapp. P. V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 182:37-43.
Stober, Q. J. 1991. Guidelines for Fish Sampling and Tissue Preparation for Bioaccumulative Contaminants. Environmental Services Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.APPENDIX J

J-11 Texas Water Commission. 1990. Texas Tissue Sampling Guidelines. Texas Water Commission, Austin, TX.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 4. Analytical Methods for U.S. EPA Priority Pollutants and 301(h) Pesticides in Tissues from Marine and Estuarine Organisms

. EPA-503/6-90-002. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. Method 1613b. Tetra- through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isot ope Dilution HRGC/HRMS. Final Draft. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995b. QA/QC Guidance for Sampling and Analysis of Sediments, Water, and Tissues for Dredged Material Evaluations—Chemical Evaluations . EPA 823-B-95-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC, and Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Versar, Inc. 1982. Sampling Protocols for Collecting Surface Water, Bed Sediment, Bivalves and Fish for Priority Pollutant Analysis--Final Draft Report. EPA Contract 68-01-6195. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA.
WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 1988. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program—Field and Laboratory Guidelines (1005.1). Madison, WI.

# APPENDIX K

GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR REMOVING EDIBLE TISSUES FROM FRESHWATER TURTLESAPPENDIX K

K-3 

## APPENDIX K
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR REMOVING EDIBLE TISSUES FROM FRESHWATER TURTLES

1. Turtles brought to the processing laboratory on wet, blue, or dry ice should be placed in a freezer for a minimum of 48 hours prior to resection. Profound hypothermia can be employed to induce death (Frye, 1994) Decapitation of alert animals is not recommended because there is evidence that decapitation does not produce instantaneous loss of consciousness (Frye, 1994).
2. The turtle should be placed on its back with the plastron (ventral plate) facing upward. The carapace and plastron are joined by a bony bridge on each side of the body extending between the fore and hindlimbs (Figure K-1). Using a bone shears, pliers, or sharp knife, break away the two sides of the carapace from the plastron between the fore and hind legs on each side of the body.
3. Remove the plastron to view the interior of the body cavity. At this point, muscle tissue from the forelimbs, hindlimbs, tail (posterior to the anus), and neck can be resected from the body. The muscle tissue should be skinned and the bones should be removed prior to homogenization of the muscle tissue. Typically, the muscle tissue is the primary tissue consumed, and turtle meat sold in local markets usually contains lean meat and bones only (Liner, 1978).
Dietary and culinary habits concerning which turtle tissues are edible, however, differ greatly among various populations. In some populations, the liver, heart, eggs, fatty deposits, and skin are also used (Liner, 1978). Therefore only general information on the types of turtle tissues most frequently considered edible can be presented here. State staff familiar with the dietary and culinary habits of the turtle-consuming populations within their jurisdictions are the best judge of which edible tissues should be included aspart of the tissue samples used to assess the health risks to the turtleconsuming public.
4. Several of the tissue types that are considered edible include the fatty deposits found in various parts of the body, the heart, liver (usually with the gall bladder removed), and the eggs (if the specimen is a female). These edible tissues are shown in Figure K-2.APPENDIX K

K-4 Source: Ashley, 1962.
Figure K-1.APPENDIX K

K-5 Source: Ashley, 1962.
Figure K-2.APPENDIX K

K-6 • Masses of yellowish-green fatty deposits may be removed from above the forelimbs and from above and in front of the hindlimbs. Fatty deposits can also be found at the base of the neck near the point where the neck enters the body cavity.
• The centrally located heart is positioned anterior to the liver.
• The large brownish liver is the predominant tissue in the body cavity andis an edible tissue eaten by some populations. Note: The small greenishcolored gall bladder lies on the dorsal side of the right lobe of the liver (not visible unless the liver is lifted upward and turned over). The gall bladder is usually removed and discarded by consumers because of its acrid taste (Liner, 1978).
• If the turtle specimen is a female, ovaries containing bright yellow-colored spherical eggs of varying sizes are located posterior to the liver and lie against the dorsal body wall.

Note : The fatty deposits, liver tissue, and eggs are highly lipophilic tissues and have been shown to accumulate chemical contaminants at concentrations 10 to more than 100 times the concentrations reported from muscle tissue (Bryan et al., 1987; Hebert et al., 1993; Olafsson et al., 1983, 1987; Ryan et al., 1986; Stone et al., 1980). States may wish to resect the fatty tissues, liver, heart, and eggs for inclusion in the turtle muscle tissue sample to obtain a conservative estimate of the concentration to which the turtle-consuming public would be exposed. Alternatively, states may want to retain these tissues for individual analysis. Some states already advise their residents who consume turtles to remove all fatty tissues (Minnesota Department of Health, 1994; New York State Department of Health, 1994) and not to consume the liver and eggs (New York State Department of Health, 1994). These cleaning procedures are recommended as a risk-reducing strategy.

REFERENCES
Ashley, L.M. 1962. Laboratory Anatomy of the Turtle . W.C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, IA.
Bryan, A.M., P .G. Olafsson, and W.B. Stone. 1987. Disposition of low and high environmental concentrations of PCBs in snapping turtle tissues. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 38:1000-1005.
Frye, F.L. 1994. Reptile Clinician’s Ha ndbook: A Compact Clinical and Surgical Reference. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL.APPENDIX K

K-7 Hebert, C.E., V. Glooschenko, G.D. Haffner, and R. Lazar. 1993. Organic contaminants in snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina ) populations from Southern Ontario, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24:35-43.
Liner, E.A. 1978. A Herpetological Cookbook: How to Cook Amphibians and Reptiles. Privately printed, Houma, LA.
Minnesota Department of Health. 1994. Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory

. Minneapolis, MN.
New York State Department of Health. 1994. Health Advisory-Chemicals in Sportfish and Game 1994-1995 . #40820042. Division of Environmental Health Assessment, Albany, NY.
Olafsson, P.G., A.M. Bryan, B. Bush, and W. Stone. 1983. Snapping turtles

— A biological screen for PCBs. Chemosphere 12 (11/12):1525-1532.
Olafsson, P.G., A.M. Bryan, and W. Stone. 1987. PCB congener specific analysis: A critical evaluation of toxic levels in biota. Chemosphere 16 (10-12):2585-2593.
Ryan, J.J., P.Y. Lau, and J.A. Hardy. 1986. 2,3,7,8, Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and related dioxans and furans in snapping turtle ( Chelydra serpentina ) tissues from the upper St. Lawrence River. Chemosphere 15 (5):537-548.
Stone, W.B., E. Kiviat, and S.A. Butkas. 1980. Toxicants in snapping turtles. New York Fish and Game Journal 27 (1):39-50.

# APPENDIX L

**GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR REMOVING EDIBLE TISSUES FROM SHELLFISH** 

Source: UNC Sea Grant Publication. 1988. UNC-SG-88.02. The Water Resources Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC**APPENDIX L**

L-3 Source: UNC Sea Grant. 1988. Publication UNC-SG-88-02. The Water Resources Research Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.**APPENDIX L**

L-4**APPENDIX L**

L-5**APPENDIX L**

L-6**APPENDIX L**

L-7**APPENDIX L**

L-8

# APPENDIX M

**SOURCES OF REFERENCE MATERIALS AND STANDARDS** **APPENDIX M**

M-3 

## APPENDIX M

**SOURCES OF REFERENCE MATERIALS AND STANDARDS**

**M.1 SOURCES OF REFERENCE MATERIALS**
Analytical reference materials for priority pollutants and related compounds are currently produced for: organic quality control samples; organic solution standards; organic neat standards; inorganic quality control standards; and solid matrix quality control standards as listed below.

**Note:** Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constiitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Identification of retailers of these products does not constitute their endorsement.

**M.2 RETAILERS OF ORGANIC QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES**

Accustandard 125 Market Street New Haven, CT 06513 Tel: 203-786-5290 FAX: 203-786-5287 Contact: Mike Bolgar Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc. 940 West Saint Paul Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53233 Tel: 414-273-3850 FAX: 800-962-9591 Analytical Products Group 2730 Washington Boulevard Belpre, OH 45714 Tel: 704-423-4200 FAX: 704-423-5588 1-800-272-4442 Contact: Tom Coyner/ Melissa McNamara Crescent Chemical Corporation 1324 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: 516-348-0333 FAX: 516-348-0913 Contact: Fran Seiss

Environmental Research Associates 5540 Marshall Street Arvada, CO 80002 Tel: 303-431-8454 FAX: 303-421-0159 Contact: Mark Carter
NSI Environmental Solutions, Inc. P. O. Box 12313 2 Triangle Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel: 1-800-234-7837 or 1-919-549-8980 FAX: 1-919-544-0334 Restek Corporation 110 Benner Circle Bellefonte, PA 16823 Tel: 814-353-1300 FAX: 814-353-1309 Contact: Eric Steindle**APPENDIX M**

M-4 Supelco Supelco Park Bellefonte, PA 16823-0048 Tel: 800-247-6628 or 814-359-3441 FAX: 814-359-3044 Ultra Scientific 250 Smith Street North Kingstown, RI 02852 Tel: 401-294-9400 FAX: 401-295-2330

**M.3 RETAILERS OF ORGANIC SOLUTION STANDARDS**
Absolute Standards, Inc. P.O. Box 5585 Hamden, NJ 06518-0585 Tel: 800-368-1131 FAX: 800-410-2577 Contact: Jack Criscio

Accustandard 125 Market St. New Haven, CT 06513 Tel: 203-786-5290 FAX: 203-786-5287 Contact: Mike Bolgar

Alameda Chemical and Scientific 922 East Southern Pacific Drive Phoenix, AZ 85034 Tel: 602-256-7044 FAX: 602-256-6566 Contact: Jim Stauffer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories 50 Frontage Road Andover, MA 01801-5413 Tel: 800-322-1174 or 978-749-8000 FAX: 978-749-2768 Contact: Jim Grim NSI Environmental Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 12313 2 Triangle Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel: 800-234-7837 or 919-549-8980 FAX: 919-544-0334 Contact: Zora Bunn Research Technology Corporation 2931 Soldier Springs Road P. O. Box 1346 Laramie, WY 82070 Tel: 307-742-6343 FAX: 307-745-7936 Contact: Robert Rucinski

**M.4 RETAILERS OF NEAT ORGANIC STANDARDS**

Accustandard 125 M arket St. New Haven, CT 06513 Tel: 203-786-5290 FAX: 203-786-5287 Contact: Mike Bolgar NSI Environmental Solutions, Inc. P. O. Box 12313 2 Triangle Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel: 1-800-234-7837 or 1-919-549-8980 FAX: 1-919-544-0334**APPENDIX M**

M-5 **M.5 RETAILERS OF INORGANIC QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES**
SPEX Industries, Inc. 203 Norcross Ave. Metuchen, NJ 08840 Tel: 732-549-7144 or 1-800-522-7739 FAX: 732-603-9647 NSI Environmental Solutions, Inc. P. O. Box 12313 2 Triangle Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel: 1-800-234-7837 or 1-919-549-8980 FAX: 1-919-544-0334

**M.6 RETAILERS OF SOLID MATRIX QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES**

Fisher Scientific 711 Forbes Avenue (Corporate address) Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: 1-800-227-6701 FAX: 1-800-926-1166 NSI Environmental Solutions, Inc. P. O. Box 12313 2 Triangle Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel: 1-800-234-7837 or 1-919-549-8980 FAX: 1-919-544-0334

**M.7 RECOMMENDED PUBLICATIONS ON CERTIFIED STANDARDS AND REFERENCE MATERIALS** 

• **Standard and Reference Materials for Marine Science (NOAA, 1992). Available from** 

Dr. Adrianna Cantillo National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 1305 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 This catalog lists approximately 2,000 reference materials from 16 producers and includes information on their use, sources, matrix type, analyte concentrations, proper use, availability, and costs. Reference materials are categorized as follows: ashes, gases, instrumental performance, oils, physical properties, rocks, sediments, sludges, tissues, and waters. This catalog has been published independently by both NOAA and IOC/UNEP and is available in electronic form from the Office of Ocean Resources, Conservation, and Assessment, NOAA/NOS.

• **Biological and Environmental Reference Materials for Trace Elements,**  **Nuclides and Organic Microcontaminants** (Toro et al., 1990). Available from

Dr. R.M. Parr Section of Nutritional and Health-Related Environmental Studies International Atomic Energy Agency P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria**APPENDIX M**

M-6 This report contains approximately 2,700 analyte values for 117 analytes in 116 biological and 77 nonbiological environmental reference materials from more than 20 sources. Additional information on cost, sample size available, and minimum amount of material recommended for analysis is also provided.
**M.8 REFERENCES** NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1992. Standard and Reference Materials for Marine Science . Third Edition. U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
Toro, E. C., R. M. Parr, and S. A. Clements. 1990. Biological and Environmental Reference Materials for Trace Elements, Nuclides and Organic Microcontaminants: A Survey . IAEA/RL/128(Rev. 1). International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

# APPENDIX N

**STATISTICAL METHODS FOR COMPARING SAMPLES: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS** **APPENDIX N**

N-3 

## APPENDIX N

**STATISTICAL METHODS FOR COMPARING SAMPLES: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS** 
The primary objective of Tier 2 intensive studies is to assess the magnitude and geographic extent of contamination in selected target species by determining whether the mean contaminant concentration exceeds the screening value (SV) for any target analyte. Sec ondary objectives of intensive studies may include defining the geographical region where fish contaminant concentrations exceed screening values (SVs), identifying geographic distribution of contaminant concentrations, and, in conjunction with historical or future data collection, assessing changes in fish contaminant concentrations over time. This appendix discusses some of the statistical methods that may be used to compare fish contaminant levels measured at different locations or over time.
The recommended statistical approach for comparing replicated contaminant measurements between two or more groups is outlined below and in Figure N-1. For each type of test, several options are provided, each of which may be appropriate in specific cases. State staff s hould consult a statistician as to the specific statistical tests to use for a particular data set.
Statistical tests of significant differences between means (or other measures of central tendency) can be divided into parametric and nonparametric types. Parametric tests assume that the contaminant concentrations in the population being sampled are normally distributed and that the population variances in the groups being tested are not significantly different from each other (Gilbert, 1987). If either of these assumptions is violated, a nonparametric test may be more appropriate. However, nonparametric tests should be used only when necessary because the power of parametric tests generally is greater than the power of nonparametric tests when the assumptions of the parametric test have been met (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981).
Because the populations of many environmental measurements are not normally distributed, logarithmic transformation is often performed on the sampled data (Gilbert, 1987). However, transformation may not be appropriate in all cases. If the data are sampled from a population that is normally distributed, then there is no need for transformation (Figure N-1).
If the assumptions of normality and equality of variance are met, parametric tests of significant differences between means, such as the one-way Analysis of**APPENDIX N**

N-4 **Figure N-1. Statistical approach to testing for significant differences between different groups of contaminant monitoring data.** **APPENDIX N**

N-5 Variance (ANOVA) and the t -test, should be performed. If three or more groups are compared using the ANOVA that results in a significant difference, the difference in mean concentrations between two group means can be further investigated using a multiple comparison test (Figure N-1). These tests indicate which specific means are significantly different from each other, rather than just indicating that one or more means are different, as the ANOVA does.
If the underlying assumptions for parametric testing are not met, nonparametrictests of significance can be employed. Nonparametric tests of significant differences in central tendencies are often performed on transformed data, that is, the ranks. Multiple comparison tests comparable to those used for parametric data sets are not available for nonparametric data sets. For data sets including three or more groups, a series of two-sample tests can be performed that can yield similar information to that derived from multiple comparison tests.
Because the concentrations of contaminants, particularly nonpolar organics, are often correlated with the percentage of lipid in a tissue sample (see Section 8.1.2), contaminant data are often normalized to the lipid concentration before statistical analyses are performed. This procedure can, in some instances, improve the power of the statistical tests. States wishing to examine the relationship between contaminant concentrations and percent age of lipid should refer to Hebert and Keenleyside (1995) for a discussion of the possible statistical approaches.
Intensive studies may include the collection of fish contaminant data from several locations within a region of interest or for multiple time periods (e.g., seasons or years) from a single location, or a combination of both. Data from intensive studies such as these may be used to perform spatial (i.e., between stations) or temporal (i.e., over time) analyses. It should be noted that these types of analyses, if performed, are performed in addition to the statistical comparisons of mean target analyte concentrations with SVs described in Section 6.1.2.7. It is only the latter type of comparison that should be used to make decisions regarding the necessity of performing risk assessments and the issuance of fish consumption advisories. Spatial and temporal comparisons of contaminant data, however, may yield important information about the variability of target analyte concentrations in specific populations of a particular target species.

**N.1 SPATIAL COMPARISON OF STATIONS**
Intensive studies also may involve the collection of contaminant data from multiple stations within a waterbody of interest. The stations could be located in different lakes within a single drainage basin, upstream and downstream of a point source of concern along a single river, or randomly located within a single waterbody if an estimate of random spatial variability is desired. The use of an example will serve to illustrate how a spatial analysis of contaminant data might be performed. In this example, a state has determined from a screening study on a river that cadmium is present in a target species at 20 ppm, which is two times the state selected SV of 10 ppm. An intensive survey was undertaken in which eight**APPENDIX N**

N-6 **Table N-1. Hypothetical Cadmium Concentrations (ppm) in Target Species A at Three River Locations**  **Replicate samples Station 1 Station 2 Station 3** 
1 2 0 2 8 3 3
2 1 8 2 7 3 0
3 2 5 3 4 3 0
4 2 2 2 8 2 8
5 2 1 3 0 2 0
6 2 2 2 9 3 9
7 2 3 3 0 3 1
8 2 1 2 9 3 0 Mean 21.5 29.4 31.3 Standard deviation 2.07 2.13 3.45 p-Value for t -test with SV <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 p-Value for W test 0.97 0.83 0.78 p-Value for Levene’s test 0.52 p-Value for ANOVA <0.0001 p-Value for Duncan’s-1 vs. 2 <0.0001 p-Value for Duncan’s-1 vs. 3 >0.0001 p-Value for Duncan’s-2 vs. 3 0.17

samples were collected from three locations on the river of potential concern and analyzed for cadmium. The results of the analyses for each location and the statistical comparisons between the three groups are presented in Table N-1.

The mean cadmium concentration at each of three locations was more than twice the selected SV of 10 ppm (Table N-1). The most important statistical test, asindicated in Section 6.1.2.7, is a comparison of the mean target analyte concentration for each location with the appropriate SV for that target analyte using a t

test. These tests must be performed before any analysis of spatial trends is performed. The results of the t -tests indicate that each of the three mean tissue concentrations is significantly greater than the SV (Table N-1). By itself, these results indicate that a risk assessment is warranted.
A general statistical flowchart for comparing contaminant concentration data from several stations is presented in Figure N-1. The cadmium data in Table N-1 may be additionally analyzed using the tests in Figure N-1. All of the statistical tests in Figure N-1 can be performed using commercial statistical software packages. By performing a spatial analysis of the data, the details of the risk assessment might be further refined. For example, one component of a fish advisory is often the establishment of risk-based consumption limits (see Volume 2 of this series). In order to calculate these limits, an estimate of the contaminant concentration in the target species must be available. In the example shown in Table N-1, there**APPENDIX N**

N-7 are three estimates of cadmium concentration. A spatial analysis of these datacan help to identify which of the concentrations (if any) to use in establishing riskbased consumption limits.
The initial steps in the flowchart on Figure N-1 are to determine whether parametric or nonparametric statistical tests should be used. The first step is to test whether each of the three groups of data are from populations that are normally distributed. Three tests that may be used for this purpose are the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality (Massey, 1951), Shapiro and Wilk’s W test (Shapiro et al., 1968; Royston, 1982), and Lilliefors’ test (Lilliefors, 1967). The results for the W test on each of the three groups of data indicate that each group was sampled from populations that are normally distributed (Table N-1). The next step is to test for homogeneity of variances between the three groups. Three tests that may be used for this purpose are Levene’s test (Milliken and Johnson, 1984), the Hartley F-max test (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981), and the Cochran C test (Winer, 1962). The result of Levene’s test indicates that the variances of the three groups of data are not significantly different from each other (Table N-1). These test results mean that parametric statistics (the left side of Figure N-1) are appropriate for this dataset.
An appropriate parametric test to perform to determine whether the three mean cadmium concentrations are significantly different from each other is a 1-way ANOVA. The result of this test indicates that the three means are significantly different (Table N-1). What this result does not show, however, is whether each mean concentration is significantly different from both of the other mean concentrations. For this answer, multiple comparison tests can be used to perform all possible pairwise comparisons between each mean.
Three tests that can be used to perform a multiple comparison are the NewmanKeul test (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981), Duncan’s Multiple Ra nge test (Hays, 1988; Milliken and Johnson, 1984), and the Tukey Honest Significant Difference test (Hays, 1988; Milliken and Johnson, 1984). Three pairwise comparisons are possible between three means (1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3). The results of Duncan’s Multiple Range test indicate that the mean concentration at station 1 (21.5 ppm) is significantly lower than the mean concentrations at both station 2 (29.4 ppm) and station 3 (31.3 ppm), which in turn are not significantly different from each other. Therefore, to be most conservative (i.e., protective), the state could use the mean of the 16 replicate samples from stations 2 and 3 to calculate risk-based consumption limits. In this example, use of the concentration from any single station would not truly represent the potential contaminant exposure to fish consumers in the waterbody of concern.

**N.2 TEMPORAL COMPARISON OF STATIONS**
Both screening and intensive studies are often repeated over time to ensure that public health is adequately protected. By examining monitoring data from several time periods from a single site, it may be possible to detect trends in contaminant**APPENDIX N**

N-8 concentrations in fish tissues. Trend analysis data should never be used to conduct risk assessments. Procedures for conducting risk assessments are adequately covered elsewhere in this document (see Section 6.1.2.7). Trendanalysis may, however, be useful for monitoring the effects of various environmental changes or policies on the contaminant concentrations in the target species. For example, a state may have issued a fish advisory for a contaminant for which the source is known or suspected. Source control for this contaminant is the obvious solution to the environmental problem. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the source control may be made easier by trend analysis. The state would still need to perform statistical calculations comparing data from each sampling site to the selected SV, but trend analysis could yield valuable information about the success of remediation efforts even if the fish advisory remained in place because of SV exceedances.
Trend analysis can be performed using the statistical framework outlined in Figure N-1, but complexities in pollution data collected over time may make this approach unsuitable in some instances. The types of complexities for which other statistical approaches might be warranted can be divided into four groups: (1) changes in sampling and/or analysis procedures, (2) seasonality, and (3) correlated data (Gilbert, 1987). Each of these subjects is discussed briefly here.
Changes in the designation of an analytical laboratory to perform analyses or changes in sampling and/or analytical procedures are not uncommon in long-term monitoring programs. These changes may result in shifts in the mean or variance of the measured values, which could be incorrectly attributed to natural or manmade changes in the processes generating the pollution (Gilbert, 1987). Ideally, when changes occur in the met hods used by the monitoring program, comparative studies should be performed to estimate the magnitude of these changes.
Seasonality may introduce variability that masks any underlying long-term trend. Statistically, this problem can be alleviated by removing the cycle before applying tests or by using tests unaffected by cycles (Gilbert, 1987). Such tests will not be discussed here. States interested in performing temporal analyses with data for which a seasonal effect is hypothesized should consult the nonparametric test developed by Sen (1968) or the seasonal Kendall test (Hirsch et al., 1982).
Measurements of contaminant concentrations taken over relatively short periods of time are likely to be positively correlated. Most statistical tests, however, including those in Figure N-1, require uncorrelated data. Gilbert (1987) discusses several methods for performing the required analyses in these cases.
Temporal trends in contaminant concentrations may be detected by regression analyses, whereby the hypothesis is tested that concentrations are not changing in a predictable fashion (usually linear) over time. If the hypothesis is rejected, a trend may be inferred. States interested in performing regression analyses should**APPENDIX N**

N-9 consult statistics textbooks such as Gilbert (1987) or Snedecor and Cochran (1980).

**N.3 REFERENCES**
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring

. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY. 320 pp.
Hays, W.L. 1988. Statistics . Fourth Edition. CBS College Publishing, New York, NY.
Hebert, C.E. and K.A. Keenleyside. 1995. To normalize or not to normalize? Fat is the question. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14(5):801-807.
Hirsch, R.M., J.R. Slack, and R.A. Smith. 1982. Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resources Research 18:107-121.
Lilliefors, H.W. 1967. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 62:399-402.
Massey, F.J., Jr. 1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 46:68-78.
Milliken, G.A., and D.E. Johnson. 1984. Analysis of Messy Data: Volume 1. Designed Experiments . Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Royston, J.P. 1982. An extension of Shapiro and Wilk’s W test for normality to large samples. Applied Statistics 31:115-124.
Sen, P.K. 1968. On a class of aligned rank order tests in two-way layouts. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 39:1115-1124.
Shapiro, S.S., M.B. Wilk, and H.J. Chen. 1968. A comparative study of various tests of normality. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 63:1343-1372.
Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical Methods . 7th edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research . Second Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 859 pp.
Winer, B.J. 1962. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design . McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.